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 written in response to an amendment filed on 3/18/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 1-11 and 13-20 were amended. No new claims were added and no claims were cancelled. Thus, Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Argument 1: Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) without corresponding structure. Applicant respectfully traverses.
The limitations "a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources" and "wherein the fabric module presents the namespace for the at least one rack" do not invoke § 112(f). The claims do not use the term "means," and thus there is a presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. That presumption is not overcome here. In the context of hyperscale networking and storage architectures, a "fabric module" denotes a structural networking component that provisions and manages a network fabric. The claims are directed to racks, storage systems, GPU servers, switches, and defined network topologies. Within this structural context, a fabric module would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a concrete networking control component, not a nonce term.
The specification further describes the fabric module as provisioning a software defined network by separating control and data planes and centralizing network intelligence, and as exposing storage resources through a single namespace that is maintained as additional racks are coupled for scale out. This description reflects a defined networking architecture and operational framework, not a purely functional result. Accordingly, @112(f) is not invoked.
Even assuming arguendo that §112(f) were applicable, the specification discloses sufficient corresponding structure and algorithm. For computer implemented functionality, the corresponding structure is a processor or controller executing the disclosed methodology. The specification describes provisioning a software defined network, presenting a single namespace for a plurality of racks, and maintaining that namespace upon coupling of additional racks. These stepwise operations provide an algorithm for performing the claimed functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the fabric module to include a controller configured to implement this disclosed networking architecture.
Because the limitations do not invoke § 112(f), and because corresponding structure is disclosed in any event, the rejection of Claims 2-4 and 12-14 under § 112(b) should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: Regarding Claim 2, “a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources”. There is no corresponding structure or algorithm disclosed for a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources.
Regarding Claim 3, “wherein the fabric module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace for the at least one rack”. There is no corresponding structure or algorithm disclosed for a fabric module of the one or more storage systems presenting the namespace for the at least one rack.
MPEP 2181(I) states “Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
MPEP 2181(I)(A) further states “With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.”
In this case, a fabric module is being modified by functional language, without being modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, thereby meeting the 3-prong analysis.
Further, Applicant did not provide where an algorithm and structure for a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources or for the fabric module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace for the at least one rack is disclosed in the specification.
Therefore, the 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection still stand.
Argument 2: Shiozawa Does Not Teach or Suggest a Scaling Operation Comprising Updating a Namespace.
The Office Action asserts that Shiozawa teaches "wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources." Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is not supported by the cited disclosure, at least because Shiozawa discloses updating a namespace replication database to maintain metadata consistency in a hierarchical storage management system, rather than performing a scaling operation of a system component wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes storage resources.
The cited portions of Shiozawa are directed to a namespace replication program in a hierarchical storage management system. Specifically, Shiozawa teaches acquiring namespace update information from a file system controller and updating or correcting a namespace replication database to maintain consistency between stored metadata and file system state, particularly in response to event loss or namespace inconsistency.
However, Shiozawa does not disclose performing any scaling operation of a system component, nor does Shiozawa disclose that any such scaling operation "comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources." Instead, Shiozawa discloses updating a namespace replication database to preserve metadata consistency within an HSM system. Accordingly, Shiozawa's disclosure of correcting a namespace replication database in response to event loss does not teach or suggest that any "scaling operation" is performed or that any such scaling operation" comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources," as recited in the independent claims. Therefore, the cited portions of Shiozawa do not teach or suggest "performing, for at least one component of the system, a scaling operation ... wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources," as recited in the independent claims.
Neither Feng nor Siebel cures these deficiencies. Feng is relied upon for a hyperscale artificial intelligence and machine learning infrastructure and general scalability, but Feng does not teach or suggest that any scaling operation "comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources," as recited in the independent claims. Likewise, Siebel is relied upon for an alleged "non-disruptive" aspect, but Siebel does not teach or suggest performing any "scaling operation" of a system component, nor does Siebel teach or suggest that any such scaling operation "comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources." Accordingly, the combination of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation.
Examiner’s Response: Shiozawa teaches wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources (par 21; par 23; par 183).
Paragraph 23 of Shiozawa states “The present invention relates to a namespace replication method for replicating a namespace on a storage device, the method including: a namespace replication database update step that acquires namespace update information, which is information relating to updating the namespace, from a file system controller for controlling the storage device in the namespace replication device for managing a namespace replication database, which is a database created based upon file identification information and link information of the storage device, and updates the namespace replication database based upon the namespace update information;”
The namespace is replicated (scaling operation) and the namespace is updated. The one or more storage resources that are exposed is the namespace update information.
Therefore, Shiozawa teaches wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources.
Argument 3: Siebel Does Not Teach or Suggest "a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system," as Claimed.
The Office Action relies on Siebel for teaching a scaling operation that is "non- disruptive." In particular, the Office Action cites Siebel's disclosure stating that traditional systems may be linked with modern big data or scale-out architecture in a complementary and non-disruptive fashion. Applicant disagrees.
The cited portions of Siebel are directed to linking traditional systems with modern big data architectures. The "non-disruptive" aspect in Siebel refers to integration between legacy systems and modern platforms.
However, Siebel does not teach or suggest "performing, for at least one component of the system, a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims. Siebel does not disclose performing any "scaling operation" of a system component, nor does Siebel disclose that any such scaling operation is "non-disruptive to another component of the system." Rather, Siebel discloses non-disruptive integration between different system platforms. Such non-disruptive integration between different system platforms concerns compatibility between distinct systems, and does not teach or suggest scaling a component within a single system in a manner that is "non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims. Accordingly, the cited portions of Siebel do not teach or suggest "a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims.
Nor does the combination of Feng and Siebel teach or suggest "performing, for at least one component of the system, a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims. Although Feng is relied upon for disclosing a system and general scalability, Feng does not teach or suggest that any such scaling operation is "non-disruptive to another component of the system." Siebel, in turn, discloses non-disruptive integration between different system platforms, but does not teach or suggest applying that concept to a scaling operation of a component within a system. Nothing in the cited portions of Siebel suggests modifying Feng's scaling of a system component so that such scaling is "non-disruptive to another component of the system," nor does Siebel provide any teaching or suggestion regarding preserving the operational state of other components within the same system during scaling. Moreover, the Office Action does not identify any teaching or suggestion in the cited references that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng's scaling of a system component so that such scaling is "non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the cited portions of Feng and Siebel do not teach or suggest "a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims. Nor does Shiozawa cure these deficiencies, as Shiozawa does not teach or suggest performing any "scaling operation" of a system component or that any such scaling operation is "non-disruptive to another component of the system," as recited in the independent claims.
Examiner’s Response: Siebel teaches scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system (par 71).
Paragraph 71 of Siebel states “However, there is also a high potential to address the emerging market opportunities with an architecture that can link the two platforms together—traditional systems and modern big data/scale-out architecture—in a complementary and non-disruptive fashion.”
The scaling operation is the linking of the two platforms together. This is done in a non-disruptive fashion. The another component of the system is the second platform being linked to the first platform, which is viewed as one system when combined.
Therefore, Siebel teaches scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 19, line 3, "having the least one GPU server" should be read "having the at least one GPU server".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 2-3 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it/they use(s) the term “configured to” with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Regarding Claim 2, “a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources”. There is no corresponding structure or algorithm disclosed for a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources.
Regarding Claim 3, “wherein the fabric module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace for the at least one rack”. There is no corresponding structure or algorithm disclosed for a fabric module of the one or more storage systems presenting the namespace for the at least one rack.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites “wherein the scaling operation comprises updating the namespace to reflect added storage resources without reconfiguration of the at least one GPU server.” The specification does not teach “wherein the scaling operation comprises updating the namespace to reflect added storage resources without reconfiguration of the at least one GPU server.”
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 recites “wherein the scaling operation comprises updating the namespace to reflect added storage resources without reconfiguration of the at least one GPU server.” The specification does not teach “wherein the scaling operation comprises updating the namespace to reflect added storage resources without reconfiguration of the at least one GPU server.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." Id. at 622. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm."
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for wherein the fabric module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace for the at least one rack.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 4, Dependent Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Claims 2-3.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (“Feng”, US 20170220949) in view of Siebel et al (“Siebel”, US 20170006135) in further view of Shiozawa et al (“Shiozawa”, US 20090006500).
Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches a system comprising: one or more storage systems including one or more storage resources that store data (par 8; par 44-46);
at least one GPU ('Graphical Processor Unit') server configured to execute artificial intelligence (Al) or machine learning (ML) applications using the data (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU.);
a processing device, operatively coupled to the one or more storage systems and the at least one GPU server, configured to: perform, for at least one component of the system, an operation (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU.).
Feng does not explicitly teach a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system, wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources.
Siebel teaches scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system (par 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng with the platform linking of Siebel because it allows for the linking of traditional systems with modern big data/scale-out architecture in a complementary and non-disruptive fashion (Siebel; par 71).
Feng and Siebel do not explicitly teach wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources.
Shiozawa teaches wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources (par 21; par 23; par 183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng and Siebel with the namespace replication program of Shiozawa because it reduces complexity and overhead when namespaces are modified (Shiozawa; par 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the system of claim 1.
Feng further teaches wherein the system comprises a first rack having the at least one GPU server and a second rack having the at least one or more storage systems (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU. The cluster comprises servers mounted on racks.).
Regarding Claim 11, Feng teaches a method comprising:
wherein the system comprises one of more storage systems including one or more storage resources that store data and at least one Graphical Processor Unit (GPU) server configured to execute artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) applications using the data (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU.),
Feng does not explicitly teach performing, by a processing device for at least one component of a system, a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system, and wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources.
Siebel teaches teach performing, by a processing device for at least one component of a system, a scaling operation that is non-disruptive to another component of the system (par 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng with the platform linking of Siebel because it allows for the linking of traditional systems with modern big data/scale-out architecture in a complementary and non-disruptive fashion (Siebel; par 71).
Feng and Siebel do not explicitly teach wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources.
Shiozawa teaches wherein the scaling operation comprises updating a namespace that exposes the one or more storage resources (par 21; par 23; par 183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng and Siebel with the namespace replication program of Shiozawa because it reduces complexity and overhead when namespaces are modified (Shiozawa; par 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the method of claim 11.
Feng further teaches wherein the system comprises a first rack having the least one GPU server and a second rack having the at least one storage system (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU. The cluster comprises servers mounted on racks.).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa in view of Gangil et al (“Gangil”, US 20180375728).
Regarding Claim 2, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the system of claim 1.
Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more storage systems comprises a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources.
Gangil teaches wherein the one or more storage systems comprises a fabric module configured to provision a software defined network for storage resources (par 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa with the SDN of Gangil because it allows for the creation of a two-tier logical router topology (Gangil; par 14). SDN further simplifies management, reduces cost, and improves performance.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 2.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, and Gangil in view of Amlekar et al (“Amlekar”, US 20140258239).
Regarding Claim 3, Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, and Gangil teach the system of claim 2.
Feng and Siebel do not explicitly teach wherein the fabric module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace.
Shiozawa teaches fabric module (par 21; par 23; par 183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng and Siebel with the namespace replication program of Shiozawa because it reduces complexity and overhead when namespaces are modified (Shiozawa; par 8).
Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, and Gangil do not explicitly teach wherein the module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace.
Amlekar teaches wherein the module of the one or more storage systems presents the namespace (par 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, and Gangil with the clustered storage system of Amleker because it allows for versioning and retrieval of previous versions of objects within a file system (Amleker; par 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, Gangil, and Amlekar teach the system of claim 3.
Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, and Gangil do not explicitly teach wherein the processing device is configured to maintain the namespace upon coupling of an additional rack.
Amlekar teaches wherein the processing device is configured to maintain the namespace upon coupling of an additional rack (par 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, Shiozawa, and Gangil with the clustered storage system of Amleker because it allows for versioning and retrieval of previous versions of objects within a file system (Amleker; par 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 4.
Claims 5, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa in view of Kommula et al (“Kommula”, US 20190020568).
Regarding Claim 5, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the system of claim 1.
Feng further teaches the at least one GPU server (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU.).
Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more storage systems is configured in a leaf-spine network topology.
Kommula teaches wherein the one or more storage systems is configured in a leaf-spine network topology (par 1; par 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa with the leaf-spine network architecture of Kommula because it allows for consistency in communication delay and latency for communications between any two computing nodes (Kommula; par 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the method of claim 11.
Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa do not explicitly teach wherein the system further comprises one or more switches.
Kommula teaches wherein the system further comprises one or more switches (par 1; par 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa with the leaf-spine network architecture of Kommula because it allows for consistency in communication delay and latency for communications between any two computing nodes (Kommula; par 1).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa in view of Pitwon et al (“Pitwon”, US 20170099190).
Regarding Claim 6, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the system of claim 1.
Feng further teaches the at least one GPU server (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU.).
Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more storage systems is configured in a torus network topology.
Pitwon teaches wherein the one or more storage systems is configured in a torus network topology (par 1; par 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa with the torus topology of Pitwon because it improves speed and reduces latency.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa in view of Briggs (“Briggs”, US 20160085738).
Regarding Claim 7, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the system of claim 1.
Feng further teaches the at least one GPU server (par 43-45; Fig. 4, elements {108, 110, 112, 415-1}, par 46-49; par 87; The cluster may be a server, which includes a GPU.).
Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more storage systems is configured in a hierarchical network topology.
Briggs teaches wherein the one or more storage systems is configured in a hierarchical network topology (par 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa with the hierarchical network topology of Briggs because it improves performance, security, reliability, and is easier to manage.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa in view of Gu (“Gu”, US 20110172963).
Regarding Claim 8, Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa teach the system of claim 1.
Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa do not explicitly teach wherein the scaling operation increases or decreases available hardware storage resources.
Gu teaches wherein the scaling operation increases or decreases available hardware storage resources (par 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feng, Siebel, and Shiozawa with the cloud computing infrastructure such as Amazon’s EC2 and Google’s AppEngine because it allows for scaling up hardware resources to applications both inexpensive and fast (Gu; par 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the closest prior art of record Feng et al (“Feng”, US 20170220949) in view of Siebel et al (“Siebel”, US 20170006135) in further view of Shiozawa et al (“Shiozawa”, US 20090006500) and in further view of Gu (“Gu”, US 20110172963) does not teach wherein the scaling operation comprises updating the namespace to reflect added storage resources without reconfiguration of the at least one GPU server, in addition to the subject matter in the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maki et al (US 20070271430), Abstract - A computer includes a management computer connected to a host computer, first and second primary storage systems, first and second secondary storage systems, a primary external storage system connected to the first and second primary storage systems and a secondary external storage system connected to the first and second secondary storage systems. The management computer controls to start copying as processing for storing copied data in the second storage area into a fourth storage area in response to a command for starting processing for storing copied data in the first storage area into a third storage area.
Wu et al (US 20140359235), Abstract - An application may store data to a dataset comprising a plurality of volumes stored on a plurality of storage systems. The application may request a dataset image of the dataset, the dataset image comprising a volume image of each volume of the dataset. A dataset image manager operates with a plurality of volume image managers in parallel to produce the dataset image, each volume image manager executing on a storage system. The plurality of volume image managers respond by performing requested operations and sending responses to the dataset image manager in parallel. Each volume image manager on a storage system may manage and produce a volume image for each volume of the dataset stored to the storage system. If a volume image for any volume of the dataset fails, or a timeout period expires, a cleanup procedure is performed to delete any successful volume images.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444