DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to application/ communications filed on 06/12/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 10, 12-13, and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a destination storage device of the DSN” in last line. Examiner recommends amending it to recite “the destination storage device of the DSN” for proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the destination device” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending it to recite “the destination storage device” for proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the namespace imbalance factor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending it to recite “the namespace range imbalance factor” for proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a rebalancing threshold” in last line. Examiner suggests amending it to recite “the rebalancing threshold” for proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 12-13 and 18 recite similar limitations as recited in claims 2-3 and 8 respectively. Therefore, the claim objection, as set forth above, also applies to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing three requirements. First, whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only one patent therefor. MPEP 2104. This requirement forms the basis for statutory double patenting rejections when two applications claim the same invention (i.e. claim identical subject matter). Second, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. Id.; MPEP 2106. Third, a claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible. MPEP 2104.
The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (STEP 1) as not falling within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. Although the specification discloses that computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium that is not to be construed as being transitory signals, the embodiments are not limited in this context ([0083]). Transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). See MPEP 2106(1); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer program product may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106(11) (A). Therefore, amending the claims to recite either a “non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium” or a “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” would resolve this issue.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (STEP 2) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for rebalancing of a distributed storage network (DSN) based on a combination of namespace range and usage imbalances. Although the claimed invention is a statutory category of invention, the method comprises:
calculating a usage imbalance factor for each of a plurality of storage devices in the DSN, which each has a device number and the plurality of storage devices are logically arranged in ascending order based on the device number (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
identifying a selected namespace range from a plurality of namespace ranges of the DSN, wherein each of the plurality of namespace ranges is spread among the plurality of storage devices (Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
calculating a namespace range imbalance factor for each of the plurality of storage devices that correspond to the selected namespace range (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
calculating a combined imbalance factor for each of the plurality of storage devices that correspond to the selected namespace range based on the usage imbalance factor and the namespace range imbalance factor that correspond to the plurality of storage devices (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
calculating an imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range by dividing a difference between a maximum combined imbalance factor and a minimum combined imbalance factor by the maximum combined imbalance factor (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and
based on a determination that the imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range is greater than a rebalancing threshold, rebalancing the selected namespace range (Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation of “calculating a usage imbalance factor for each of a plurality of storage devices in the DSN, which each has a device number and the plurality of storage devices are logically arranged in ascending order based on the device number”, “calculating a namespace range imbalance factor for each of the plurality of storage devices that correspond to the selected namespace range”, “calculating a combined imbalance factor for each of the plurality of storage devices that correspond to the selected namespace range based on the usage imbalance factor and the namespace range imbalance factor that correspond to the plurality of storage devices”, and “calculating an imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range by dividing a difference between a maximum combined imbalance factor and a minimum combined imbalance factor by the maximum combined imbalance factor”, as drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, require performing an arithmetic calculations (i.e., calculating usage imbalance factor as well as namespace range imbalance factor, then using them for calculating a combined imbalance factor, and then calculating an imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range). These limitations therefore recite mathematical calculations. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar abstract idea (2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52).
Similarly, the limitation of “identifying a selected namespace range from a plurality of namespace ranges of the DSN, wherein each of the plurality of namespace ranges is spread among the plurality of storage devices” and “based on a determination that the imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range is greater than a rebalancing threshold, rebalancing the selected namespace range”, as drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the plurality of storage devices”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the plurality of storage devices” language, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a selected namespace range from a plurality of namespace ranges. Similarly, rebalancing encompasses reassigning a portion of a namespace range assigned to storage device N to one or more of storage devices (see [0048]). Such reassignment is seen as mere mental step practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract idea(s).
Next, an evaluation is done whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations in “the plurality of storage devices in the DSN”, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more. The claim recites the additional elements in “the plurality of storage devices in the DSN”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “the plurality of storage devices in the DSN” are generic computer elements, applied generically to an abstract idea. The mere recitation of “the plurality of storage devices in the DSN” is akin to adding the words “apply it" with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, making the claim patent ineligible.
Claim 2-10 depends on claim 1, and introduces additional limitations:
wherein rebalancing the selected namespace range comprises:
identifying a source storage device of the DSN, wherein the source storage device of the DSN is identified based on a determination that it has a largest namespace imbalance factor; and
identifying one of a left neighbor storage device of the DSN and a right neighbor storage device of the DSN as a destination storage device of the DSN, wherein the device number of the left neighbor storage device is one less than the device number of the source storage device and the device number of the right neighbor storage device is one greater than the device number of the source storage device; and
copying data and reassigning a portion of the selected namespace range from the source storage device to a destination storage device of the DSN;
wherein the identification of the destination device is based on a comparison of combined imbalance factors of the left neighbor storage device and the right neighbor storage device;
wherein the selected namespace range is identified from the plurality of namespace ranges of the DSN based on a relative amount of usage of the plurality of namespace ranges;
wherein the combined imbalance factor for each of the plurality of storage devices is calculated as a range weight multiplied by the range imbalance factor plus the usage imbalance factor multiplied by one minus the range weight;
wherein the range weight is one based on an average fullness of the plurality of storage devices in the DSN being less than a namespace rebalancing threshold value and the range weight is zero based on the average fullness being greater than a usage rebalancing threshold;
wherein based on the average fullness of the plurality of storage devices being greater that the namespace rebalancing threshold and less than the usage rebalancing threshold, the range weight is calculated as: 0.5 + sign * pow(abs(cos(x * PI)), a balance adjustment) / 2 , where x is calculated as (an average fullness ? namespace rebalancing threshold) / (usage rebalancing threshold ? namespace rebalancing threshold), sign is the sign of cos(x *PI), and the balance adjustment is user configurable parameter;
wherein the namespace imbalance factor for a storage device is calculated as a maximum namespace address minus a minimum namespace address divided by an ideal maximum namespace address minus an ideal minimum namespace address;
wherein the usage imbalance factor for a storage device is calculated as an actual usage of the storage device divided by a balanced usage of the storage device; and
determining that rebalancing the selected namespace range is not required based on a determination that the imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range is not greater than a rebalancing threshold.
As set forth in claim 1, these limitations as drafted, are processes that each, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers method of either mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application of the exception. If the exception is not integrated into a practical application, then the claim is “directed to” the exception.
In addition, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the additional elements are generic computer elements, applied generically to an abstract idea. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, making the claim patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As for claims 11 and 20, the claims are directed towards the corresponding computing system having memory with instructions and computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having instructions to perform the steps disclosed in method claim 1 respectively. Although the computing system and computer program product are statutory categories of inventions, the claim limitations do not teach or further define over the limitations put forth in claim 1 hence, directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected for same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As for Claims 12-19, the claims depend on claim 11, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-9 respectively. Therefore, claims 12-19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-9 respectively.
Examiner’s Note: To overcome 101 rejection, applicant is strongly recommended to amend the independent claims to include limitations/ concepts pertaining to either:
using hybrid rebalancing policy in view of [0051]-[0053] (similar to claims 6-7), and provide/ show practical application(s) of using such hybrid rebalancing policy in the remarks, or
the rebalancing step, as claimed in claim 2, and provide/ show practical application of using such rebalancing in the remarks (as supported by the specification).
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific details of calculating a combined imbalance factor for each of the plurality of storage devices that correspond to the selected namespace range based on the usage imbalance factor and the namespace range imbalance factor that correspond to the plurality of storage devices; calculating an imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range by dividing a difference between a maximum combined imbalance factor and a minimum combined imbalance factor by the maximum combined imbalance factor; and based on a determination that the imbalance ratio for the selected namespace range is greater than a rebalancing threshold, rebalancing the selected namespace range.
The closest prior arts examiner found were Motwani et al. (US 20180337997 A1), and Resch et al. (US 8707088 B2).
Motwani generally teaches a system which namespaces may be rebalanced based on their expected future usage. A processing module updates a memory mapping to map the DSN address range to each of the memory devices of the plurality of memory devices to produce an updated memory mapping. This avoids the need to perform any future rebalancing once the namespace ranges have been reassigned and redistributed.
Resch discloses a method for reconfiguring data storage in multiple dispersed storage networks (DSNs), wherein a processing module determining access performance to copies of dispersed storage encoded data stored in the DSNs. Each distributed storage unit maintains a virtual to physical memory mapping to assist in the storage and retrieval of data. The processing module modifies the set of the plurality of DSNs based on the access performance and the desired access performance level to produce a modified set of the plurality of DSNs when the access performance is not at a desired access performance level. The processing module then facilitates the new DSN store another copy of the dispersed storage encoded data.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the limitations presented in the independent claims, taken together as a whole and as presented, cannot be rejected by the prior art of record without using a level of hindsight reasoning that is impermissible. Specifically, the closest prior-art references, cited above, neither alone, nor in combination can be used to reject the independent claims based on the questions of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Motwani et al. (US 10977123 B2) teaches determining that a range of data slices is unhealthy (e.g., slow response, missing many slices, etc.), and generating the storage unit status information to include an identifier for one or more of the distributed storage units.
Baptist et al. (US 20180059984 A1) discloses a distributed storage unit with access to remote memory devices for use in a dispersed storage network.
Peake et al. (US 20140122636 A1) discloses balancing storage node utilization of a DSN.
Baptist et al. (US 11620232 B2) teaches associating a processing thread and memory section to a memory device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights