CTNF 18/806,669 CTNF 94153 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 AIA 2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment 3. The Amendment filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14 and 16 have been amended, claims 1, 3 – 12, 14 – 20 and 22 are pending in the application, with claims 2, 13 and 21 cancelled from consideration. Response to Arguments 35 U.S.C. §101 4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 10 -15, filed 05/05/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1- 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment to the independent claims overcome the statutory rejection. Examiner respectfully agrees. The claimed invention is integrated into a practical solution of rebalancing a cluster of machines to improve the efficiency of storage operations. 35 U.S.C. §102 5. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 15 -18, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 12 and 22under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment to the independent claim is not taught by the art of record Examiner respectfully agrees. The statutory rejection is withdrawn 35 U.S.C. §103 6. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 19, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 3 – 11 and 14 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. Applicant argues that since these claims depend from a parent claims whose amended limitations are not taught by the art of record, then dependent claims inherit such review Examiner respectfully agrees. Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 07-20-aia AIA 7. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2019/0286360 ), hereinafter Delgado , in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham Regarding claim 1 Delgado teaches a method (ABS., method)(method [0049]) comprising: performing a rebalancing operation (achieve load balancing [0018] [0039]) to rebalance (load balancing [0018] [0039]) a result set (Fig. 4, component object with data blocks [0007]) such as “result set” determining a target distribution (FIG. 2, composite object 200 includes a virtual disk blueprint 215 that describes a RAID 1 configuration where two mirrored copies of the virtual disk (e.g., mirrors) are each further striped in a RAID 0 configuration . [0016]) such as “target distribution” of the set of chunks (portions/partitions/stripes [0018]) such as “set of chunks” SEE ALSO "component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016] across (RAID 1/RAID 0 configuration [0018]) the cluster of machines; (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) each machine (Fig. 1 nodes 111 [0010]) identifying (identifying [0046]) a first subset of one or more machines (Fig. 4 Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) within the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) having a surplus (Fig. 4, Node 111 A has Component object 220a and Component object 220b [0007], [0022]) of one or more chunks ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016]) based on a target distribution; (FIG. 2, composite object 200 includes a virtual disk blueprint 215 that describes a RAID 1 configuration where two mirrored copies of the virtual disk (e.g., mirrors) are each further striped in a RAID 0 configuration. [0016]) such as “target distribution” SEE ALSO T1, T2 and T3 metrics for bytes occupation and distribution amongst nodes [0026], [0028], [0042] identifying (identifying [0046]) a second subset of one or more machine (Fig. 4 Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) within the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) having a deficit (Fig. 4 Node 111 B has Component object 220c [0007], [0022]) of one or more chunks ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016]) based on the target distribution; (FIG. 2, composite object 200 includes a virtual disk blueprint 215 that describes a RAID 1 configuration where two mirrored copies of the virtual disk (e.g., mirrors) are each further striped in a RAID 0 configuration. [0016]) such as “target distribution” SEE ALSO T1, T2 and T3 metrics for bytes occupation and distribution amongst nodes [0026], [0028], [0042] and transferring (FIG. 4 illustrates two nodes 111 A and 111 B , between which a component object 220 is proposed to be migrated. In one embodiment, the migration between nodes 111 A and 111 B is recommended by CLOM sub-module 325 as a result of CLOM sub-module 325 performing load balancing. For example, upon determining that the local storage of a source node (e.g., node 111 A ) is over-utilized, CLOM sub-module 325 performs a selection of a component object 220 to be moved from the source node (e.g., node 111 A ) if there are multiple candidates. [0039]) one or more chunks ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016]) from the first subset of one or more machines (Fig. 4 Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) to the second subset of one or more machines, (Fig. 4 Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) wherein the method (ABS., method)(method [0049]) to rebalance the distribution of the set of chunks across the cluster of machines , (performing load balancing [0039]) is performed by one or more computing devices (a device or apparatus for performing these operations [0046]) Delgado does not fully disclose performing a first set of one or more database operations using a cluster of machines in a distributed system, wherein: the first set of one or more database operations produces a result set comprising a data structure in a tabular format comprising a plurality of rows, the result set is segmented into a set of chunks distributed across the cluster of machines, each chunk of the set of chunks contains a subset of the plurality of rows, and each machine in the cluster of machines contains zero or more chunks of the set of chunks in an initial distribution of the set of chunks across the cluster of machines, and performing a second set of one or more database operations on the rebalanced result set using the cluster of machines Stringham teaches performing a first set of one or more database operations (involve balancing the plurality of cluster partitions 300 across the modified plurality of database clusters 106. [0112]) using a cluster of machines in a distributed system, (the multi-cluster database management system assigns a cluster to host a cluster partition. As such, the assigned cluster hosts data having key IDs corresponding to key IDs assigned to the cluster partition [0030]) wherein: the first set of one or more database operations (involve balancing the plurality of cluster partitions 300 across the modified plurality of database clusters 106. [0112]) produces a result set comprising a data structure in a tabular format (a dataset [0026], [0039]) comprising a plurality of rows, (having key IDs corresponding to key IDs assigned to the cluster partition [0029]) the result set (a dataset [0026], [0039]) is segmented into a set of chunks distributed across the cluster of machines, (method 400 can include an act 412 of moving at least a portion of the data of the dataset between the database clusters Cl-C4, C2-C3 of the modified plurality of database clusters based on the re-distribution of the plurality of cluster partitions CP1-CP12 [0104]) each chunk of the set of chunks contains a subset of the plurality of rows, (Thus, a cluster partition can be considered an owner of a conceptually computed subset of key identifiers making up a cluster key space. [0027]) and each machine in the cluster of machines (Fig. 1 the API 104 is in communication with the database clusters 106a, 106b, ... 106n. The clusters 106 are each a set of one or more database nodes 108 (of which nodes 108a-1 are examples). Each node 108 represents a computing resource capable of storing and manipulating data and can include one or more node characteristics as described above. [0043]) contains zero or more chunks of the set of chunks in an initial distribution of the set of chunks across the cluster of machines, (Each cluster partition is assigned a portion of the data of multi-cluster database. The multi-cluster database management system divides the cluster partitions among the clusters of the multi-cluster database to evenly distribute the data across the clusters. [0026]) and performing a second set of one or more database operations on the rebalanced result set using the cluster of machines (Upon the addition of new cluster(s ), the multi-cluster database management system can re-distribute data across the original cluster(s) and the new cluster(s) by assigning cluster partitions to the news clusters of the database [0032]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado to incorporate the teachings of Stringham wherein performing a first set of one or more database operations using a cluster of machines in a distributed system, wherein: the first set of one or more database operations produces a result set comprising a data structure in a tabular format comprising a plurality of rows, the result set is segmented into a set of chunks distributed across the cluster of machines, each chunk of the set of chunks contains a subset of the plurality of rows, and each machine in the cluster of machines contains zero or more chunks of the set of chunks in an initial distribution of the set of chunks across the cluster of machines, and performing a second set of one or more database operations on the rebalanced result set using the cluster of machines. By doing so the systems and methods described herein can re-distribute/balance data across a database expanded by the addition of a cluster or contracted by the subtraction of a cluster. In particular, the systems and methods of one or more embodiments can transfer or move portions of a dataset between clusters of a multi-cluster database to balance the dataset across the clusters. Stringham [0014] Claim 12 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected accordingly Regarding claim 22 Delgado in view of Stringham teaches the method of claim 1, Delgado further teaches wherein transferring the one or more chunks from the first subset of one or more machines to the second subset of one or more machines comprises (migration from a source node and also select a destination node to house the component object. [0009]) performing multiple transfers from the first subset of one or more machines to the second subset of one or more machines (Fig. 5. (545) (any more data blocks ? “Yes” [0034] (515) select next LBA [0032]) simultaneously (Fig. 2 RAID 0 stripe across object 220a – 220f comprising Node 111b – Node 111d [0005], [0014]) Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 07-20-aia AIA 9. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 – 5 and 14 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2019/0286360 ), hereinafter Delgado , in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham and in further view of Khadiwala et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20150193309), hereinafter referred to as Khadiwala . Regarding claim 3 Delgado in view of Stringham teaches the method of claim 1, Delgado further teaches wherein: the first set of one or more database operations (Fig. 5 operations [0008]) comprises a graph pattern matching operation, the second set of one or more database operations comprises an aggregation operation, and a sorting operation, (At 620, CLOM sub-module 325 sorts a list of all component objects 220 in the source node by the total number of bytes occupied by unique data blocks (T3) of the respective component objects after compression. [0042]) (At 660, CLOM sub-module 325 sorts the destination nodes according to the amount of free local storage capacity thereat. [0045]) Delgado does not fully disclose the result set is an intermediate result set produced after the graph pattern matching operation, prior to the aggregation and sorting operations, and prior to the result set being accessible by a user, and the rebalancing operation is an unordered rebalancing operation. Khadiwala teaches the result set (Fig. 12 data blocks [0077], [0102], [0138]) such as “result set” is an intermediate result set (Fig. 32 intermediate result [0193], [0195], [0203][0210]) produced after the graph pattern matching operation, (predetermined site pattern [0294]) such as “graph pattern matching operation” prior to (prior to [0348]) the aggregation (aggregate [0146]) and sorting operations, and prior to (prior to [0348]) the result set (Fig. 12 data blocks [0077], [0102], [0138]) such as “result set” being accessible by a user, (for a particular user [0079]) and the rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) is an unordered (substantially equal distribution within a site by storage unit, [0294]) such as “unordered” rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Khadiwala whereby the result set is an intermediate result set produced after the graph pattern matching operation, prior the aggregation and sorting operations, and prior to the result set being accessible by a user, and the rebalancing operation is an unordered rebalancing operation. By doing so he result information 244 may be the collected partial results, one or more final results as produced by the DSTN module 22 from processing the partial results in accordance with the DST allocation information 242, or one or more intermediate results as produced by the DSTN module 22 from processing the partial results in accordance with the DST allocation information 242. Khadiwala [0195] Claim 14 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly Regarding claim 4 Delgado in view of Stringham and Khadiwala teaches the method of claim 3, Delgado as modified further teaches transferring (FIG. 4 illustrates two nodes 111 A and 111 B , between which a component object 220 is proposed to be migrated . In one embodiment, the migration between nodes 111 A and 111 B is recommended by CLOM sub-module 325 as a result of CLOM sub-module 325 performing load balancing. For example, upon determining that the local storage of a source node (e.g., node 111 A ) is over-utilized, CLOM sub-module 325 performs a selection of a component object 220 to be moved from the source node (e.g., node 111 A ) if there are multiple candidates. [0039]) a number of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” from a first machine (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) within the first subset (Fig. 4, Nodes 111 A [0007], [0023]) of one or more machines (Fig. 1, virtual machines, VM 1 … VM N [0004], [0010]) to a second machine (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) within the second subset (Fig. 4, Nodes 111 B [0007], [0023]) of one or more machines, (Fig. 1, virtual machines, VM 1 … VM N [0004], [0010]) wherein the number of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” is equal to a minimum of a surplus number of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” in the first machine (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) and a deficit number (Fig. 4 Node 111 B has Component object 220c [0007], [0022]) of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” in the second machine; (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) updating a distribution (update a virtual disk blueprint or the mappings of the virtual disk blueprint [0017]) of the set of chunks (portions/partitions/stripes [0018]) such as “set of chunks” SEE ALSO "component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016] across (RAID 1/RAID 0 configuration [0018]) the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) to form an updated distribution (update a virtual disk blueprint or the mappings of the virtual disk blueprint [0017]) by subtracting the number of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” from the first machine (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) and adding the number of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” to the second machine; (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) and repeating transferring (FIG. 4 illustrates two nodes 111 A and 111 B , between which a component object 220 is proposed to be migrated . In one embodiment, the migration between nodes 111 A and 111 B is recommended by CLOM sub-module 325 as a result of CLOM sub-module 325 performing load balancing. For example, upon determining that the local storage of a source node (e.g., node 111 A ) is over-utilized, CLOM sub-module 325 performs a selection of a component object 220 to be moved from the source node (e.g., node 111 A ) if there are multiple candidates. [0039]) the number of chunks (e.g. stripes of composite object [0018]) such as “a number of chunks” and updating the distribution (update a virtual disk blueprint or the mappings of the virtual disk blueprint [0017]) of the set of chunks (portions/partitions/stripes [0018]) such as “set of chunks” SEE ALSO "component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016] across (RAID 1/RAID 0 configuration [0018]) the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) until the first machine (Fig. 1, virtual machine, VM1 [0004], [0010]) does not have a surplus of chunks (stripes [0021]) such as “chunks” Delgado does not fully disclose wherein the unordered rebalancing operation comprises: Khadiwala teaches wherein the unordered (weighted distribution based on available storage unit, [0294]) such as “unordered” rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Khadiwala wherein the unordered rebalancing operation. By doing so to support distributed task processing on received data. Khadiwala [0082] Claim 15 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly Regarding claim 5 Delgado in view of Stringham teaches the method of claim 1, Delgado further teaches wherein: the first set one or more database operations (Fig. 5 operations [0008]) and the second set of one or more database operations comprise a graph pattern matching operation, an aggregation operation, and a sorting operation, (At 620, CLOM sub-module 325 sorts a list of all component objects 220 in the source node by the total number of bytes occupied by unique data blocks (T3) of the respective component objects after compression. [0042]) (At 660, CLOM sub-module 325 sorts the destination nodes according to the amount of free local storage capacity thereat. [0045]) the result set is produced after the aggregation and sorting operations or the result (Fig. 4, component object with data blocks [0007]) such as “result set” is accessible by a user, ("owners" that control access to which objects [0019]) Delgado does not fully disclose and the rebalancing operation is an ordered rebalancing operation such that an order of results after the rebalancing operation is the same as an order of results prior to the rebalancing operation. Khadiwala teaches and the rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) is an ordered (substantially equal distribution by site, [0294]) such as “ordered” rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) such that an order of results after (For example, the outbound DS processing module 80 calculates the number of storage slots per site in accordance with a formula: number of storage slots per site=number of storage slots/number of sites=45/3=15 when the load balancing scheme includes even distribution by site [0294]) the rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) is the same as an order of results prior to (For example, the outbound DS processing module 80 calculates the number of storage slots per site in accordance with a formula: number of storage slots per site=number of storage slots/number of sites=45/3=15 when the load balancing scheme includes even distribution by site [0294]) the rebalancing operation (load balancing [0294]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Khadiwala wherein the rebalancing operation is an ordered rebalancing operation such that an order of results after the rebalancing operation is the same as an order of results prior to the rebalancing operation. By doing so the outbound DS processing module 80 maps the storage slots per site to the DST execution units per site in accordance with a formula: number of storage slots per the DST execution unit=number of storage slots for the site/number of DST execution units at the site when the load balancing scheme includes even distribution. Khadiwala [0295]. Claim 16 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2019/0286360 ), hereinafter Delgado , in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham, in view of Khadiwala et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20150193309), hereinafter referred to as Khadiwala and in further view of Kiran Gunnam (United States Patent Publication Number 2012/0099670 ) hereinafter Gunnam Regarding claim 6 Delgado in view of Stringham and Khadiwala teaches the method of claim 5, Delgado as modified further teaches wherein: a given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) within the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) has a surplus (Fig. 4, Node 111 A has Component object 220a and Component object 220b [0007], [0022]) of one or more chunks, ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016]) a previous machine ((Fig. 4, Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) within the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) has a deficit (Fig. 4 Node 111 B has Component object 220c [0007], [0022]) of one or more chunks, ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016]) the previous machine ((Fig. 4, Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) has a last non-full chunk, (Fig. 4 Physical storage space having only data block B in Component object 220 C [0024]) of the given machine; (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) from the given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) to the previous machine; ((Fig. 4, Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) in the previous machine; ((Fig. 4, Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) the given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) to the previous machine ((Fig. 4, Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) Delgado does not fully disclose and the ordered rebalancing operation comprises: dividing a first chunk into a first non-full chunk containing a number of rows required to pad the last non-full chunk to form a full chunk and a second non-full chunk; transferring the first non-full chunk; appending the last non-full chunk and the first non-full chunk to form a full chunk; and transferring the second non-full chunk from. Khadiwala teaches and the ordered rebalancing operation It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado n view of Strignham to incorporate the teachings of Khadiwala wherein the ordered rebalancing operation. By doing so the outbound DS processing module 80 maps the storage slots per site to the DST execution units per site in accordance with a formula: number of storage slots per the DST execution unit=number of storage slots for the site/number of DST execution units at the site when the load balancing scheme includes even distribution. Khadiwala [0295] Gunnam teaches dividing (splits the 3,444 received user-data bits into [0085]) SEE ALSO divided channel output values into 35 chunks [0107] a first chunk (anyone of (i) 71 chunks of received user-data bits, each chunk having 48 user-data bits an [0085]) into a first non-full chunk ((ii) one partial chunk of received user-data bits having the remaining 36 received user-data bits (i.e., (7lx48)+36=3,444). [0085]) SEE ALSO partial chunk (chunk 36) of 42 channel soft-output values [0107] containing a number of rows (comprises 216 sub-matrices B1,k that are arranged in (i) r=4 rows of sub-matrices, herein referred to as block rows, wherej=l, ... , rand [0063]) required to pad (ABS., padding bits) (Fig. 1 insert padding bits [0065]) the last non-full chunk (Fig. 4, (402) CHNK 72 [0088]) to form a full chunk (Fig. 4 (406) SET 26 CHNK 73 [0090]) and a second non-full chunk; (Fig. 4, (404) CHNK 72 [0089]) transferring (transmit [0056]) the first non-full chunk; (Fig. 4 (406) SET 26 CHNK 73 [0090]) appending (ABS., padding bits) (Fig. 1 insert padding bits [0065]) the last non-full chunk (Fig. 4 (406) SET 26 CHNK 73 [0090]) and the first non-full chunk (Fig. 4, (402) CHNK 72 [0088]) to form a full chunk; (Fig. 4 (406) SET 47 CHNK 94 [0090]) and transferring (transmit [0056]) the second non-full chunk from. (Fig. 4, (404) CHNK 72 [0089]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham and Khadiwala to incorporate the teachings of Gunnam wherein dividing a first chunk into a first non-full chunk containing a number of rows required to pad the last non-full chunk to form a full chunk and a second non-full chunk; transferring the first non-full chunk; appending the last non-full chunk and the first non-full chunk to form a full chunk; transferring the second non-full chunk from. By doing so the padding- value inserter is adapted to add a set of padding values to the set of user-data values to form a dataword. The interleaver is adapted to interleave the dataword. The encoder is adapted to encode the interleaved dataword to generate a codeword comprising the set of user-data values and a set of parity values. Gunnam [0043] Claim 17 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected accordingly Regarding claim 7 Delgado in view of Stringham and Khadiwala teaches the method of claim 5, Delgado as modified teaches wherein: a given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) within the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) has a surplus (Fig. 4, Node 111 A has Component object 220a and Component object 220b [0007], [0022]) of one or more chunks, ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016] the given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) in the given machine; (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) from the given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) to the next machine. ((Fig. 1, any one of Node 111 with VM 1 – VM N [0010]) Delgado does not fully disclose dividing a penultimate chunk of the given machine into a first non-full chunk and a second non-full chunk containing a number of rows required to pad the last non-full chunk to form a full chunk; appending the second non-full chunk and the last non-full chunk in the given machine to form a last full chunk; and transferring the last full chunk Khadiwala teaches and the ordered rebalancing operation It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Khadiwala wherein the ordered rebalancing operation. By doing so the outbound DS processing module 80 maps the storage slots per site to the DST execution units per site in accordance with a formula: number of storage slots per the DST execution unit=number of storage slots for the site/number of DST execution units at the site when the load balancing scheme includes even distribution. Khadiwala [0295] Gunnam teaches has a last non-full chunk, (Fig. 4 (406) SET 26 CHNK 73 [0090]) dividing (splits the 3,444 received user-data bits into [0085]) SEE ALSO divided channel output values into 35 chunks [0107] a penultimate chunk of the given machine into a first non-full chunk (Fig. 4, (402) CHNK 72 [0088]) and a second non-full chunk (Fig. 4, (404) CHNK 72 [0089]) containing a number of rows (comprises 216 sub-matrices B1,k that are arranged in (i) r=4 rows of sub-matrices, herein referred to as block rows, wherej=l, ... , rand [0063]) required to pad (ABS., padding bits) (Fig. 1 insert padding bits [0065]) the last non-full chunk (Fig. 4 (406) SET 26 CHNK 73 [0090]) to form a full chunk; (Fig. 4 (406) SET 47 CHNK 94 [0090]) appending (ABS., padding bits) (Fig. 1 insert padding bits [0065]) the second non-full chunk (Fig. 4, (404) CHNK 72 [0089]) and the last non-full chunk (Fig. 4 (406) SET 26 CHNK 73 [0090]) to form a last full chunk; (Fig. 8 SET 25 CHNK 72 [0109]) and transferring (transmit [0056]) the last full chunk (Fig. 8 SET 25 CHNK 72 [0109]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham and Khadiwala to incorporate the teachings of Gunnam dividing a penultimate chunk of the given machine into a first non-full chunk and a second non-full chunk containing a number of rows required to pad the last non-full chunk to form a full chunk; appending the second non-full chunk and the last non-full chunk in the given machine to form a last full chunk; and transferring the last full chunk. By doing so a set of padding values is added to the transmission word to form a padded transmission word, wherein the transmission word comprises values corresponding to the set of user-data values and a set of parity values. Gunnam [0044] Claim 18 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2019/0286360 ), hereinafter Delgado , in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham and in further view of Govindaraj et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2021/0191910) hereinafter Govindaraj Regarding claim 8 Delgado in view of Stringham teaches the method of claim 1, Delgado teaches wherein: the target distribution (FIG. 2, composite object 200 includes a virtual disk blueprint 215 that describes a RAID 1 configuration where two mirrored copies of the virtual disk (e.g., mirrors) are each further striped in a RAID 0 configuration. [0016]) such as “target distribution” SEE ALSO T1, T2 and T3 metrics for bytes occupation and distribution amongst nodes [0026], [0028], [0042] of the set of chunks (portions/partitions/stripes [0018]) such as “set of chunks” SEE ALSO "component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016] across the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) Delgado does not fully disclose is determined based on a set of machine weights, each machine weight within the set of machine weights corresponds to a volume of data its respective machine is intended to hold. Govindaraj teaches is determined based on a set of machine weights, ( relative weights corresponding to a plurality of data access parameters based on a ranking associated with each of the plurality of data access parameters. [0017]) each machine weight (relative weights corresponding to each data access parameter. [0036]) within the set of machine weights (TABLE 2, “Waiter Count”, “Data Consumption Trend”, “Filesystem Metadata Volume Type”, “User Data Volume Type” [0034]) such as “set of machine weights” corresponds to a volume of data (user data volume [0045]) its respective machine (Accordingly, the hypervisor 116 may provide a host operating system for the virtual machine. The hypervisor 116 may be type-I hypervisor (also referred to as "bare-metal hypervisor") or type-2 (also referred to as "hosted hypervisor"). [0024]) is intended to hold (the user data volume type are 10, 80%, 0, and 1, respectively (see Table-3). Accordingly, in one example, values in cells 312, 314, 316, and 318 of the weighted decision matrix 300 may represent multiplication product of the values of the Type- I candidate corresponding to the data access parameters and respective relative weights of the data access parameters. [0045]) SEE TABLE 3 It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Govindaraj wherein is determined based on a set of machine weights, each machine weight within the set of machine weights corresponds to a volume of data its respective machine is intended to hold. By doing so round-off errors from calculations of the relative weights may be gathered to determine a relative weight of the user data volume type as 1 %. Govindaraj [0040] Claim 19 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly Regarding claim 9 Delgado in view of Strignham and Govindaraj teaches the method of claim 8, Delgado teaches wherein a given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) in the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) Delgado does not fully disclose has a weight of zero. Govindaraj teaches has a weight of zero (Type-1 filesystem metadata volume type is “0”, Type-2 user data volume type is “0”, Type-3 filesystem metadata volume type “0”, Type-4 data consumption trend is “0”, Type-5 filesystem metadata volume type “0”, Type-6 user data volume type is “0” and Type-7 filesystem metadata volume type “0” [0042] SEE TABLE 3 It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Govindaraj wherein has a weight of zero. By doing so the virtual controller 128 may determine the priority metric corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate types based on values of the plurality of data access parameters corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate types and the relative weights corresponding to the plurality of data access parameters. Govindaraj [] 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2019/0286360 ), hereinafter Delgado , in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham and in further view of Cox et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20130326028) hereinafter Cox Regarding claim 10 Delgado in view of Stringham teaches the method of claim 1, Delgado further teaches wherein transferring (FIG. 4 illustrates two nodes 111 A and 111 B , between which a component object 220 is proposed to be migrated. In one embodiment, the migration between nodes 111 A and 111 B is recommended by CLOM sub-module 325 as a result of CLOM sub-module 325 performing load balancing. For example, upon determining that the local storage of a source node (e.g., node 111 A ) is over-utilized, CLOM sub-module 325 performs a selection of a component object 220 to be moved from the source node (e.g., node 111 A ) if there are multiple candidates. [0039]) the one or more chunks ("component" objects 220, corresponding to each stripe ( e.g., data partition of the virtual disk) in each of the virtual disk mirrors. [0016]) from the first subset of one or more machines (Fig. 4 Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) to the second subset of one or more machines (Fig. 4 Node 111 B [0007], [0022]) between the initial distribution (RAID 1 configuration [0014]) and the target distribution (FIG. 2, composite object 200 includes a virtual disk blueprint 215 that describes a RAID 1 configuration where two mirrored copies of the virtual disk (e.g., mirrors) are each further striped in a RAID 0 configuration . [0016]) such as “target distribution” Delgado does not fully disclose is performed in response to a difference being outside an error-margin . Cox teaches is performed in response to a difference being outside an error-margin (information regarding outlier conditions, or methods by which outlier conditions were addressed in the creation of a target configuration [0023) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of Cox is performed is performed in response to a difference being outside an error-margin. By doing so outlier performance data may be replaced with estimated performance data where the outlier performance data are believed to be anomalous. Cox [0018] 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 2019/0286360 ), hereinafter Delgado , in view of Stringham et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150254325) hereinafter Stringham and in further view of Danilov et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20210390113) hereinafter Danilov Regarding claim 11 Delgado in view of Stringham teaches the method of claim 1, Delgado further teaches a determining the target distribution (FIG. 2, composite object 200 includes a virtual disk blueprint 215 that describes a RAID 1 configuration where two mirrored copies of the virtual disk (e.g., mirrors) are each further striped in a RAID 0 configuration . [0016]) such as “target distribution” a given machine (Fig. 4, Node 111 A [0007], [0022]) within the cluster of machines (Fig. 1, nodes 111 of cluster 110 [0010]) Delgado does not fully disclose wherein: the rebalancing operation comprises a gradual rebalancing operation, and comprises limiting a difference in number of chunks for to a threshold. Danilov teaches wherein: the rebalancing operation (load balancing [0040], [0062]) comprises a gradual (batch mode [0061]) rebalancing operation, (load balancing [0040], [0062]) and comprises limiting a difference in number of chunks for to a threshold (The replication service may stop adding objects to a batch data structure when the current object data fits well into an integer number of dedicated chunks, or if the size of the current batch data structure exceeds some predefined capacity threshold, e.g. five chunk sizes. [0042]) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Delgado in view of Stringham to incorporate the teachings of wherein: the rebalancing operation comprises a gradual rebalancing operation, and comprises limiting a difference in number of chunks for to a threshold. By doing so if the replication service gets multiple objects that cannot fill even one complete chunk (to a threshold percentage), at operation 504 the service requests the remote site it has chosen as a replication destination to receive the objects using batch-mode replication. Danilov [0044] Claim 20 corresponds to claim 11 and is rejected accordingly Conclusion 07-96 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Joo et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2017/0371910) hereinafter Joo teaches “in operation, candidate entities in the database shards are identified for rebalancing and new locations in the database shards for the candidate entities are determined. A new shard map is created that identifies the new locations in the database shards for the candidate entities. [0002]” 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469) 295- 9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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). /KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166 /SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 2 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 3 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 4 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 5 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 6 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 7 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 8 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 9 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 10 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 11 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 12 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 13 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 14 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 15 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 16 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 17 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 18 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 19 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 20 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 21 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 22 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 23 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 24 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 25 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 26 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 27 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 28 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 29 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 30 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/806,669 Page 31 Art Unit: 2166
Prosecution Insights