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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed October 30, 2025 in response to PTO Office Action mailed July 30, 2025. The applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
In response to last Office Action, claims 21, 28, 33 and 34 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. As a result, claims 21-40 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Darisa merely describes an available space evaluator for quantifying the unused storage space in the storage group and sequentially migrating snapshots according to migration order. Indeed, Darisa focuses on available space, which is fundamentally different than the claimed “actual storage utilization” (e.g., of data stored by a data store”). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the fact.
According to MPEP § 2111 During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard.
Accordingly, let’s consider claimed language first. The claimed limitation “receiving a request to generate an estimated storage utilization associated with a storage object stored by a data store, wherein the storage object has an actual storage utilization”. Current disclosure par. [0015] defines the storage object as “a virtual disk”, “a storage volume”, “a storage space (e.g., a grouping of storage space having an associated level of fault tolerance…)”…”a single file” etc. Darisa par. [0036] teaches: “A RAID group may be a logical data group comprised of host data elements stored on multiple data storage devices (or similar devices or components subject to independent failure modes) with a data protection or data redundancy configuration, such as parity, mirroring, erasure coding, or other data protection schemes.” Darisa in par. [0035] teaches that “logical data units may include inodes, volumes in a file system, or buckets in an object system and logical data subunits may include snapshots or objects within those inodes, volumes, or buckets.”. As underlined above, Darisa teaches “a RAID group” or a volume or a snapshot, which can be considered as “an object” stored by a data store. Darisa throughout the disclosure teaches reconfiguring data redundancy of the storage object (such as a RAID group or snapshot volume) from first RAID level to a second level and as admitted by the Applicant in remarks, the Darisa is focusing on determining an available/unused space for migration of the snapshot from first RAID level to second RAID clearly teaches the claimed limitations as claimed according to broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations. For example, Darisa par. [0066] teaches that available space evaluator may quantify the unused space to determine largest data unit (here data unit or snapshot is a one of many data units or snapshots and therefore the largest data unit or a snapshot stored in the storage device is a claimed storage object). Darisa in par. [0066] further teaches that “an available space evaluator 326.2 may calculate a migration factor for the data requirements of the new RAID configuration of the largest logical data unit, such as requirements for parity or mirroring of data that may not include parity or mirroring in its current RAID configuration”. Par. [0089] teaches: “For example, migration of 5 GB snapshot may require an allocation of 5 GB (gigabytes) of unused data blocks or, if the new RAID configuration imposes additional data redundancy overhead, such as 100% for mirroring or 50% for a particular parity scheme, then 10 GB or 7.5 GB (respectively) of unused data blocks may be allocated”. As noted above, Darisa teaches determining an unused space for “a RAID group” or “a snapshot” having an actual capacity of 5GB requires at least 5GB of unused space and if new configuration imposes additional data redundancy overhead, such as 100% for mirroring or 50% particular parity scheme then 10GB or 7.5 GB of unused space will be required. Here, it is noted that the actual utilization of the storage object/RAID group/snapshot is 5GB and if the new configuration is mirroring then 10GB of unused space is needed, which indicates estimated utilization of 10GB based on the new configuration. As explained in par. [0066], the current RAID configuration does not include parity or mirroring means it is RAID-0 configuration and when the new RAID configuration is mirroring, 100% of free space is required, e.g., a RAID-0 snapshot with 5 GB (actual utilization) will require 10 GB of unused space (estimated utilization based on actual utilization of 5 GB) for mirroring configuration. It is also well-known the art of RAID technology for each type of RAID configuration and number disks utilized, the overhead of each RAID configuration and therefore it would be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine current actual storage utilization based on the type of RAID level current associated with the storage object (such as a volume or a file or a snapshot) and estimate or calculate new storage utilization (e.g., estimated utilization) based on the new RAID configuration. Thus, the technique of determining an unused space required to migrate data of a particular snapshot/a RAID group from one RAID configuration/level to another RAID configuration/level based on current storage space teaches the claimed limitations of determining an estimated storage utilization (e.g., required unused storage space) based on the current (actual) utilization. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and therefore the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darisa et al. (US 2020/0210090) and further in view of Voigt et al. (US 5,960,4510/Mikula (US 7,322,010).
As per claim 21, Darisa teaches a system (Darisa: fig. 1, par. [0020]) comprising:
at least one processor (Darisa: fig. 3, item 302); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Darisa: par. [0024]; claim 1), causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
receiving a request to generate an estimated storage utilization associated with a storage object stored by a data store based on a first storage policy, wherein the storage object has an actual storage utilization on a data store based on a second storage policy; determining, based on the actual storage utilization and the second storage policy for the storage object, a base storage utilization for the storage object; generating, based on the base storage utilization and the first storage policy, the estimated storage utilization for the storage object on the data store (Darisa: par. [0003] teaches that the system administrator wants to reconfigure storage group to use a different data redundancy configuration, such as a second RAID level. Darisa par. [0059] further teaches that the system administrator may want reconfigure the RAID configuration, therefore Darisa teaches determining available space that will accommodate newly reconfigured RAID. To determine an available space Darisa par. [0045] teaches identifying original configuration parameters (e.g., second storage policy) and new configuration parameters. Darisa (pars. [0066], [0077] – [0079] and [0083] – [0089] teach identifying/allocating unused space equal to the storage capacity of source volume, which teaches limitations of generating an estimated storage utilization… (e.g. par. [0066] teaches that the space evaluator may calculate data requirements of new RAID configuration such as requirement of parity or mirroring of data that may not include parity or mirroring in its current RAID configuration, e.g., a RAID-0 is either reconfigured as RAID-1 or RAID with parity. In pars. [0078], [0079] Darisa teaches that original volume configured in RAID-1 configuration with 40 data blocks is reconfigured as RAID-6 comprising 28 blocks and in par. [0089], Darisa further teaches a snapshot volume of 5GB, when reconfigured as RAID-1 configuration will require 10GB of space or 7.5GB for another RAID configuration. It is also well-known in the art of RAID technology that different RAID configurations have different effective user capacities, such as RAID 0 with n disks has effective/base capacity of n, RAID-1 has effective capacity of 1/n, RAID-5 has effective capacity of 1-1/n, RAID-6 has effective capacity of 1-2/n. Thus, it would be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art with the disclosure of Darisa in front, will be motivated to generate estimated storage utilization of the storage object based on first storage policy (e.g., if a RAID-0 snapshot of 5GB capacity, when reconfigured as RAID-1 will require 10GB space or 7.5GB for RAID-5).
Darisa expressly fails to teach providing, in response to the request, an indication of the estimated storage utilization. Voigt/Mikula teaches in response to the request, an indication of the estimated storage utilization Voigt: abstract, col. 3, lines 31-49 and Mikula: col. 4, lines 32-67; col. 5, lines 55-67; col. 7, line 15 – col. 8, line 21 teaches that the system displays new configuration information to user before being actually committed, e.g., providing indication of the new configuration to user/administrator. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide an indication of the estimated storage utilization of the new configuration as taught by Voigt/Mikula so that user/administrator can determine whether to change the storage policy or not to avoid undesirable changes to save the processing time (Mikula: col. 1, lines 10-36).
As per claim 22, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula teach wherein the estimated storage utilization is different from the base storage utilization by at least a storage overhead associated with the first storage policy (Darisa: pars. [0066], [0089] teaches use of parity or overhead of additional 100% storage space based on RAID type).
As per claim 23, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula fails to teach wherein the indication of the estimated storage utilization comprises a representation of an estimated difference in physical storage utilization between the first storage policy and the second storage policy for the storage object. However, as explained with respect to claim 1 above, Darisa pars. [0077] – [0079] teaches that original RAID type A with RAID 10 with 8 disks configuration is using 40 data blocks of storage and when reconfigured as RAID 6 with 8 disk uses 28 blocks of storage. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the difference in storage utilizations based on source and target RAID configurations to determine whether it is possible to apply new storage policy and it is beneficial or not.
As per claim 24, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula teach wherein: the request comprises an indication of a virtual environment with which a set of storage objects including the storage object is associated; the first storage policy is for the virtual environment; generating an estimated storage utilization further comprises generating an aggregated estimate for the set of storage objects associated with the virtual environment; and the set of storage objects is stored on the data store comprising a plurality of storage devices based on the aggregated estimate. Darisa fig. 2, pars. [0037] – [0046] teaches virtual environment with set of storage devices are distributed to provide virtualized logical units and RAID groups and Darisa teaches changing the RAID configurations for the virtualized environment, where it would be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate storage utilizations of the all virtual devices which needs to be reconfigured.
As per claim 25, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula teach wherein the actual storage utilization and the second storage policy for the storage object are determined using one or more application programming interface (API) calls to an object store associated with the storage object (Darisa: pars. [0038], [0043]).
As per claim 26, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula teach wherein the set of operations further comprises: receiving a confirmation indication to implement the first storage policy; and providing, to an object store manager, an indication to store the storage object according to the first storage policy. Darisa par. [0066] teaches returning an error if enough space is not available or initiates process of changing RAID configuration. Voigt teaches providing information to administrator (Voigt: abstract). Mikula teaches displaying to user for user input (Mikula: col. 4, lines 12-67).
As per claim 27, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula teach wherein the first storage policy comprises at least one of: a changed RAID (“redundant array of independent disks”) level compared to the second storage policy; or a changed fault tolerance level compared to the second storage policy (Darisa: pars. [0003], [0066]; Mikula: col. 5, lines 55-67).
Claims 28-30 and 33-40 are directed to a method and are similar in scope with claims 21-27. Thus, claims 28-30 and 33-40 are rejected under same rationales as applied to claims 26, 22 and 23 above.
As per claim 31, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula fails to teach wherein the indication associated with the actual storage utilization of the storage object comprises a difference between the estimated storage utilization and the actual storage utilization of the storage object. However, as explained with respect to claim 1 above, Darisa pars. [0077] – [0079] teaches that original RAID type A with RAID 10 with 8 disks configuration is using 40 data blocks of storage and when reconfigured as RAID 6 with 8 disk uses 28 blocks of storage. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the difference in estimated storage utilizations based on source and target RAID configurations to determine whether it is possible to apply new storage policy and it is beneficial or not.
As per claim 32, Darisa, Voigt and Mikula teach wherein the indication associated with the actual storage utilization of the storage object comprises a graphical representation of a difference between the estimated storage utilization and the actual storage utilization of the storage object. As explained with respect to claims 21-23, 26 and 31, one having ordinary skill will be able to determine the difference and Voigt and Mikula teach the displaying the information to the user/administrator.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,464. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of patent anticipates claims of current application.
Claims of current application include limitations such as a first storage policy and a second storage policy whereas claims of patent include limitations such as a new policy and a current policy, which is equivalent to a first policy and a second policy respectively. Therefore, claims of patent anticipates claims of current application.
Conclusion
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) (1) requires such support in the Specification for any new language added to the claims and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires support be found in the Drawings for all claimed features.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 KAUSHIKKUMAR M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Tim T Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
Kaushikkumar M. Patel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2138
/Kaushikkumar M Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138