DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant's submission of the amendment dated 5/22/26, which has been entered.
1. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC ' 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goel (US 8453036).
With respect to claim 1, the Goel reference teaches a method comprising:
detecting, in a storage system having a first Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) format, a change to an operational characteristic of the storage system; (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)]) and
in response to detecting the change, comparing the operational characteristic to a threshold value associated with the operational characteristic to determine whether to reconfigure the storage system; (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 16-47, where as the need for storage capacity in a Declustered Group increases, it may become necessary to add an additional mass storage device to the Declustered Group. There are several considerations to take into account when adding a new disk to an existing Declustered Group. It may be desirable, for the reasons discussed above, to maintain the evenly balanced declustered organization of the Declustered Group and where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8 [The Examiner notes the ‘need for storage capacity’ (analogous to the ‘threshold value associated with the operational characteristic’) to determine whether to reconfigure the storage system by adding a disk]) and
responsive to the comparison, reconfiguring the storage system to have a second RAID format. (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a new RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)])
With respect to claim 2, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the change to the operational characteristic comprises detecting a change to a hardware configuration of the storage system. (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a new RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)])
With respect to claim 3, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the change to the hardware configuration comprises a change to a number of storage devices in a write group of the storage system. (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a new RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)])
With respect to claim 4, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the change to the hardware configuration comprises a change in capacity for a write group of the storage system. (column 7, lines 16-28, where as the need for storage capacity in a Declustered Group increases, it may become necessary to add an additional mass storage device to the Declustered Group. There are several considerations to take into account when adding a new disk to an existing Declustered Group)
With respect to claim 5, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the change to the operational characteristic comprises detecting a change in a failure rate for one or more storage devices of the storage system. (column 5, line 55 to column 6, line 2, where in the event of disk failure, a lost data block on the failed disk can be recalculated using the value of the parity block in the parity group. The value of the parity block in each stripe may be calculated by any of a number of algorithms, such as for example, the XOR of all the data blocks in the stripe. In a disk reconstruction, the value of each block in a stripe from each disk that did not fail is read and used to recalculate the data block from the failed disk using the parity algorithm. Reconstructing the failed disk requires a read operation on each disk in the parity group that did not fail and a write operation to the failed disk for every stripe. Since a read or write operation can only be performed on one block in a disk at a time, reconstruct times can be high)
With respect to claim 6, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the change to the operational characteristic comprises detecting a change in a service model for the storage system. (column 1, line 62 to column 2, line 15, where the RAID devices can be used to address different issues and adapting different RAID types to address these different issues)
With respect to claim 7, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the change to the operational characteristic comprises detecting a change to a rebuild configuration for the storage system. (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a new RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)])
With respect to claim 8, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second RAID format comprises a different stripe width than the first RAID format. (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a new RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)])
With respect to claim 9, the Goel reference teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second RAID format comprises a different number of data shards than the first RAID format. (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 29-47, where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. In this embodiment each disk has 10 blocks so 1/9 of the block is 1 1/9 blocks. Since a fraction of a block cannot be moved to the new disk, the fraction may be rounded down to one block. Thus, in this embodiment, one block will be moved from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) to new disk D8 [i.e. a new RAID group/format is created using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7)])
Claims 11-19 are the system implementation of claims 1-9, and rejected under a similar rationale as shown in the rejections above. The Examiner notes the Goel reference teaches “a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory …” as shown in fig. 2.
Claims 21-22 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium implementation of claims 1-9, and rejected under a similar rationale as shown in the rejections above.
2. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
Applicant's amendments and arguments (see pages 6-9 of the remarks) with respect to claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 have been considered, and not persuasive. The Applicant argues (see pages 6-8) that the prior art does not teach the limitation of "comparing the operational characteristic to a threshold value associated with the operational characteristic to determine whether to reconfigure the storage system; and responsive to the comparison, reconfiguring the storage system to have a second RAID format," as recited in claim 1 and similarly in the other independent claims. The Goel reference teaches (see fig. 6a; and column 7, lines 16-47) as the need for storage capacity in a Declustered Group increases, it may become necessary to add an additional mass storage device to the Declustered Group. There are several considerations to take into account when adding a new disk to an existing Declustered Group. It may be desirable, for the reasons discussed above, to maintain the evenly balanced declustered organization of the Declustered Group; and where Declustered Group 600 includes nine disks, including newly added disk D8. Thus, 1/9 of the blocks from each disk (i.e., DO-D7) may be moved to the new disk D8. Therefore, based on the citations above, the Goel reference teaches that as the need for storage capacity (analogous to the ‘threshold value associated with the operational characteristic’ to determine whether to reconfigure the storage system by adding a disk) in a group increases, it may become necessary to add an additional mass storage device to the group and to rebalance the blocks evenly which creates a different second RAID group/format using 9 disks (DO-D7 and D8) being migrated from 8 disks (i.e. DO-D7) [i.e. first group/format] as noted in the example above. Lastly, the Examiner notes that the limitation of “to determine whether to reconfigure the storage system” is merely an intended result of the "comparing the operational characteristic to a threshold value associated with the operational characteristic” and should not be given patentable weight as argued. (see MPEP 2111.04) Therefore, based on the citations above, the Goel reference teaches the limitations above as broadly and instantly claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “change in failure rate” in dependent claims 5 and 15; and “change in service model” in dependent claims 6 and 16 as recited on pages 8-9) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to claims 5 and 15, the Goel reference teaches (column 5, line 55 to column 6, line 2) that the storage system recognizes a ‘change in failure rate’ when a disk changes from operational to becoming a failed disk. Further, with respect to claims 6 and 16, the Goel reference teaches (column 1, line 62 to column 2, line 15) RAID devices can be used to address different issues and adapting different RAID types to address these different issues, and therefore teaches a change in a ‘service model’. The Examiner notes these features the Applicant argues are not explicitly claimed, and thus have not been considered as argued.
3. CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASITH THAMMAVONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-8 PM EST.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached on (571) 272-1077. 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.
/PRASITH THAMMAVONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights