DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cherkasova (US 2008/0022282) and in view of Resch (US 2012/0030736) and in view of Chatley (US 2009/0144284).
Re Claim 1 and 19, Cherkasova discloses a method for execution by one or more computing devices, the method comprising:
scheduling processing of one or more data access requests of a plurality of data access requests to produce an execution schedule, wherein the scheduling processing is in accordance with an access performance level for previous data access requests and in accordance with a desired access performance level ([0022], [0024], utilizing evaluation metrices to compare the two workload managers. The workload manager manages access of competing consumer workloads based on a scheduling scheme and control parameters for a scheduler. The workload manage evaluator employs a workload manager evaluation metric maybe a historical workload collected to represent the workload of the consumers).
Cherkasova does not disclose, however Resch discloses executing the one or more data access requests in accordance with the execution schedule ([0098], data access request to a data storage module);
determining an updated access performance level compares unfavorably to the desired access performance level ([0115], The processing module may update the performance parameters).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cherkasova’s access request with Resch’s access request schedule. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the users to schedule data requests on a schedule to improve efficiency.
Cherkasova and Resch does not disclose, however Chatley discloses implementing an alternate throughput scheme for subsequent data access requests of the plurality of data access requests ([0024], redirecting subsequent download requests from the first region to the second region instead).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cherkasova and Resch’s access request with Chatley’s subsequent requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the users to schedule data requests on a schedule to improve efficiency.
Re claim 2, Cherkasova discloses wherein the access performance level comprises a rolling average response time between receiving a previous data access request of the previous data access requests and responding with a corresponding previous data access response ([0024]-[0025], [0081], workload represents historical workload collected for the consumer. The evaluation comprises various information about the performance of workload manager such as efficiency and QoS evaluation. The quality includes response time requirements).
Re claim 3, Cherkasova discloses wherein the access performance level comprises a standard deviation in time between a first subset of the previous data access requests and a corresponding subset of previous corresponding data access responses ([0054-[0065], [0067]-[0069], utilizes a simulation model of a workload manager which allocates each workload resources and associates them with a schedule. The allocation is used where the choice of lower and upper utilization of allocation threshold is based on the quality class to schedule other requests of each workload for the consumer) . In addition, Resch discloses [0151], storage performance based on mean time to failure, mean time, etcs)
Re claim 4, Cherkasova discloses wherein the updated performance level comprises the standard deviation in time between a second subset of the previous data access requests and a corresponding second subset of previous data access responses, wherein the second subset includes the first subset of the previous data access requests and the data access request ([0070], the operational measures resource usage efficiency and resource access QoS over a representative time period for a workload's demands, e.g., hours or months. Thus, for instance, representative workload may be historical workloads collected for a system over such a time period which would include the previous, current, and future requests).
Re claim 5, Cherkasova discloses wherein determining the access performance level comprises: initiating a query ([0033], workloads assigned are requesting access to certain resources); and receiving and query response ([0038]-[0039], the schedule is chose to provide access to its allocated shares based on dynamic reallocation by the scheduler).
Re claim 6, Cherkasova discloses wherein determining the access performance level comprises interpreting a historical record ([0070], representative workload may be historical workloads collected for a system over such a time period which would include the previous, current, and future requests).
Re claim 6, Cherkasova discloses wherein determining the access performance level comprises interpreting performing a test ([0025], workload evaluation metric such as usage and QoS evaluation).
Re claim 9, In addition, Chatley disclose wherein the alternate throughput scheme comprises:
redirecting one or more of the subsequent data access requests ([0024], redirecting subsequent download requests from the first region to the second region instead
Re claim 15, Cherkasova discloses wherein the implementing comprises: determining whether to increase or decrease throughput of data access requests of the plurality of data access requests being processed into data access responses ([0006]-[0007], a gain parameter that affects how quickly the workload's allocation increases or decreases based on its current demand ).
Claims 8, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cherkasova and in view of Resch and in view of Chatley and in view of Prahlad (US 2010/0333116)
Re Claim 8, Cherkasova, Resch, and Chatley does not disclose, however Prahlad discloses wherein the alternate throughput scheme comprises: rejecting one or more of the subsequent data access requests [0409], reject requests based on not meeting minimum requirements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cherkasova Resch, and Chatley’s access request with Prahlad’s access request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the users to schedule data requests on a schedule to improve efficiency.
Re Claim 16 and 20, Prahlad discloses determining a data storage type associated with a first data access request of the plurality of data access requests ([0059], arrangement of resources based on clients function such as a copy, backup, or archive); and
when the data storage type is not a first type, comparing the updated access performance level to the desired access performance level ([0430], backup, archive are chosen because specific performance and pricing requirements) .
Re Claim 17, Prahlad discloses wherein a first type comprises archival storage ([0059] archive copy).
Re Claim 18, Prahlad discloses wherein the first type comprises backup storage ([0059] backup copy).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cherkasova and in view of Resch and in view of Chatley and in view of Ziegler (US 2013/0117605).
Re Claim 10, Cherkasova, Resch, and Chatley does not disclose, however Ziegler discloses wherein the alternate throughput scheme comprises:
delaying sending a data access response to the requesting entity, wherein the data access response is regarding the data access request ([0083], additional delay is inserted prior to sending the next request message).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cherkasova Resch, and Chatley’s access request with Ziegler’s access request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the users to schedule data requests on a schedule to improve efficiency.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cherkasova and in view of Resch and in view of Chatley and in view of Anand (US 2005/0086448)
Re Claims 11-12, Cherkasova, Resch, and Chatley does not disclose, however Anand discloses wherein the alternate throughput scheme comprises:
wherein the alternate throughput scheme comprises:
modifying the execution schedule to include scheduling processing of additional and fewer data access requests within a particular time frame associated with the execution schedule ([0017], [0024], system realizes flow of requests of buffers. Based on load constraints, hint to the application program to increase or decrease the number of data requests being made within a certain period of time).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cherkasova Resch, and Chatley’s access request with Anand’s access request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the users to schedule data requests on a schedule to improve efficiency.
Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cherkasova and in view of Resch and in view of Chatley and in view of Mopur (US 2016/0191359)
Re Claims 13-14, Cherkasova, Resch, and Chatley does not disclose, however Mopur discloses determining the updated performance level is less than and greater than the desired access performance level by a performance difference threshold level ([0014], changing in parameters may cause degradation and result in reduce data transfer rate or a higher response time).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cherkasova Resch, and Chatley’s access request with Mopur’s access request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the users to schedule data requests on a schedule to improve efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443