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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IBM, “DS8000 Four-Site Replication with IBM Copy Services Manager” February 2020, https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp5517.pdf in view of Stotoski et al. US2022/0334775 in view of Hajare et al. US2017/0185491 in view of Yerli US2015/0215390
Regarding claim 1, IBM teaches: establishing synchronous replication between one or more members having a primary copy of data of a primary storage site and one or more members having a secondary copy of data of a secondary storage site with while maintaining zero recovery point objective (RPO) and Zero recovery time objective (RTO); (IBM see page 2-4 approach of 4 site set up of consistency groups with a primary production region and a synchronous secondary data site using RPO and RTO)
receiving, with the primary storage site, a clone request for the first copy of data;
invoking, based on the clone request an asynchronous Drain-With-Hold (DWH) process to complete any inflight operations (ops) on the primary storage site and hold any new ops received on the primary storage site (IBM see page 2-4, 24-26, 46, 62 replication session for recovery results in draining consistency groups and suspending global pairs such that no other actions are allowed)
replication the secondary storage site to invoke an asynchronous DWH process on the secondary storage site to complete any inflight ops on the secondary storage site and hold any new ops received on the secondary storage site (IBM see page 2-4, 24-26, 46, 62 replication session for recovery results in draining consistency groups and suspending global pairs such that no other actions are allowed)
waiting for a completion notification from both the DWH process of the primary storage site and the DWH process of the secondary storage site prior to creating the clone copy of the primary copy of data on the primary storage site (IBM see pages 37, 41, 62, 79, 80 issue suspend, wait until draining is complete and return to target available state, waiting for state action for an initial state verification and issue command to continue replication to primary storage site)
IBM does not distinctly disclose: bi-directional replication, the primary storage site having read/write access to the primary copy of data and concurrently the secondary storage site having read/write access to the secondary copy of data
Modifiable clone
Which are capable of modifying a first copy of data, hold any new ops in a holder queue
sending, based on the clone request, a message from the primary storage site to the secondary storage site, invoke DWH process, which are capable of modifying the secondary copy of data, hold any new ops in a holder queue
modifiable clone copy
However, Stotoski teaches: bi-directional synchronous replication (Stotski see paragraph 0072 bi-directional synchronous replication)
sending a message from the primary storage site to the secondary storage site (Stotski see paragraph 0210 first system sending message to second storage system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include bidirectional replication as taught by Stotoski for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
IBM does not distinctly disclose: the primary storage site having read/write access to the primary copy of data and concurrently the secondary storage site having read/write access to the secondary copy of data
Modifiable clone
Which are capable of modifying a first copy of data hold any new ops in a holder queue
based on the clone request, invoke DWH process, which are capable of modifying the secondary copy of data, hold any new ops in a holder queue
modifiable clone copy
Hajare teaches: the primary storage site having read/write access to the primary copy of data and concurrently the secondary storage site having read/write access to the secondary copy of data (Hajare see paragraphs 0004 0017 0028 primary and second storage system each to have a controller used to execute incoming write operations on respective data volumes as well as retrieving data from respective data volumes)
hold any new ops in a holder queue
based on the clone request, invoke DWH process, hold any new ops in a holder queue (Hajare see paragraphs 0048-0051 0057 request to create snapshots are split to first and second storage controller resulting in drain and hold, during drain and hold operations incoming write requests are queued)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include snapshot creation with synchronous replication as taught by Hajare for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
IBM does not distinctly disclose: Modifiable clone
Which are capable of modifying a first copy of data
hold any new ops in a holder queue
modifiable clone copy
Yerli teaches: Modifiable clone
Which are capable of modifying a first copy of data
Which are capable of modifying the secondary copy of data (Yerli see paragraph 0012 modified first copy of data and modified second copy of data)
modifiable clone copy (Yerli see paragraph 0012 modified first copy of data and modified second copy of data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include modifiable copy of data as taught by Yerli for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 3, IBM as modified further teaches: once all inflight ops are drained, notifying based on the DWH process of the primary storage site, a clone thread of inflight op drain completion on the primary storage site. (IBM see page 62, 79, 80 issue suspend, wait until draining is complete and return to target available state, waiting for state action for an initial state verification)
Regarding claim 5, IBM as modified further teaches: once all inflight ops are drained, notifying, based on the DWH process of the secondary storage site, a clone thread for the clone request of inflight op drain completion on the secondary storage site;
unblocking a clone command of the clone thread; and
sending, based on the clone command, a request to a filesystem of the primary storage site to perform a clone operation on the primary copy of data of the primary storage site. (IBM see page 24 62 suspending replication and draining state completed and return to target state with paused replication, verify that volumes indicate consistent and recoverable data then confirm production and restart replication)
to create a modifiable clone copy of the primary copy of data on the primary storage site (Yerli see paragraph 0012 modified first copy of data and modified second copy of data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include modifiable copy of data as taught by Yerli for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 14, IBM as modified further teaches: wherein the primary copy of data comprises a file, a LUN, or a memory namespace (Hajare see paragraph 0004 first storage object LUN)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include snapshot creation with synchronous replication as taught by Hajare for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 12, note the rejection of claim(s) 1, 3, 5. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9, 11 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IBM, “DS8000 Four-Site Replication with IBM Copy Services Manager” February 2020, https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp5517.pdf in view of Stotoski et al. US2022/0334775 in view of Hajare et al. US2017/0185491 in view of Yerli US2015/0215390 in view of Biemueller et al. US11474857
Regarding claim 2, IBM as modifies teaches: transitioning, based on the DWH process of the primary storage site, a synchronous replication splitter to a DWH state and queues a DWH cookie in a holder queue. (Hajare see paragraphs 0048-0051 0057 request to create snapshots are split to first and second storage controller resulting in drain and hold, during drain and hold operations incoming write requests are queued)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include snapshot creation with synchronous replication as taught by Hajare for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
IBM as modified does not teach: and queues a cookie in a holder queue.
Biemueller teaches: and queues a cookie in a holder queue. (Biemueller see col. 21 lines 47-56 cookie added inserted into queue)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include a queue as taught by Biemueller for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 4, IBM as modifies teaches: transitioning, based on the DWH process of the secondary storage site, a synchronous replication splitter to a DWH state and. (Hajare see paragraphs 0048-0051 0057 request to create snapshots are split to first and second storage controller resulting in drain and hold, during drain and hold operations incoming write requests are queued)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include snapshot creation with synchronous replication as taught by Hajare for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
IBM as modified does not teach: and queues a cookie in a holder queue.
Biemueller teaches: and queues a cookie in a holder queue. (Biemueller see col. 21 lines 47-56 cookie added inserted into queue)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include a queue as taught by Biemueller for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claims 9, 11, note the rejection of claim(s) 2, 4. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Claim(s) 6, 7 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IBM, “DS8000 Four-Site Replication with IBM Copy Services Manager” February 2020, https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp5517.pdf in view of Stotoski et al. US2022/0334775 in view of Hajare et al. US2017/0185491 in view of Yerli US2015/0215390 in view of Dell “RecoverPoint Write phrase for Array Based Splitter?” 2/12/2013, https://www.dell.com/community/en/conversations/recoverpoint/recoverpoint-write-phase-for-array-based-splitter/647f2f06f4ccf8a8de4d0a1b in view of Biemueller et al. US11474857
Regarding claim 6, IBM teaches: once a clone response from the clone operation is obtained, replicating based on the clone command the clone operation to the secondary storage site to clone the copy of data; (IBM see page 22 replication across all sites)
IBM does not teach: upon both clone operations being complete on the primary and second storage sites, invoking based on the clone thread an unhold technique to transition a synchronous replication splitter of the primary storage site to ‘splitting’ state and queueing an async task to wake-up all the ops suspended in a holder queue of the primary storage site; and
sending based on the clone thread a replication unhold message from the primary storage site to the secondary storage site and this message invokes an unhold technique to transition the synchronous replication splitter of the secondary storage site to ‘splitting’ state and queueing an async task to wake-up all the ops suspended in the holder queue of the secondary storage site.
However, Dell teaches: upon both clone operations being complete on the primary and second storage sites, invoking based on the clone thread an unhold technique to transition a synchronous replication splitter of the primary storage site to ‘splitting’ state and queueing an async task to wake-up all the ops suspended of the primary storage site; and
sending based on the clone thread a replication unhold message from the primary storage site to the secondary storage site and this message invokes an unhold technique to transition the synchronous replication splitter of the secondary storage site to ‘splitting’ state and queueing an async task to wake-up all the ops suspended of the secondary storage site. (Dell see pages 1-6, splitter intercepts writes, sends copies to both storage and RecoverPoint Applicance (RPA) and hold acknowledgement until both destinations confirm the write, host is not acknowledged until both RPA and primary storage confirm indicating I/O is held at splitter draining the write from the host an releases the write once replication and primary commit are complete)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include a splitter as taught by Dell for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
IBM as modified does not teach: in a holder queue
In the holder queue
Biemueller teaches: in a holder queue
In the holder queue (Biemueller see col. 21 lines 47-56 cookie added inserted into queue)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include a queue as taught by Biemueller for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 7, IBM as modified further teaches: wherein the primary copy of data comprises a file, a LUN, or a memory namespace (Hajare see paragraph 0004 first storage object LUN)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of four-site replication as taught by IBM to include snapshot creation with synchronous replication as taught by Hajare for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 6
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Prior art does not teach newly amended claims
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is moot as newly amended claims are responded to in the above rejection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153