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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 arerejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,035. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims a broader or obvious variation of the invention over U.S. Patent No. 12,086,035. All claimed limitations are disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 12,086,035. Mapping shown below.
18/828,089
US 12,086,035
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fachan (US 2008/0046667).
As to claim 1, Fachan discloses a method, comprising:
logging I/O operations, received by a node of a distributed storage architecture, for subsequently updating a distributed file system (¶0061 & ¶0041);
grouping the logged I/O operations into a first group and a second group based upon processing states of the logged I/O operations (¶0156);
determining a rebuild order to rebuilt in-memory representations of the logged I/O operations (¶0087 & ¶0152);
implementing a rebuild process to rebuild a first set of in-memory representations irrespective of the rebuild order and to rebuild a second set of in-memory representations according to the rebuild order based upon the first set of in-memory representations corresponding to the first group and the second set of in-memory representations corresponding to the second group (¶0151 & ¶0188); and
updating the distributed file system with metadata using the first and second set of in-memory representations (¶0154 & ¶0195).
As to claim 2, Fachan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: utilizing in-memory representations to execute log structures of logged I/O operations according to an execution order for updating the distributed file system with the metadata and persisting data to persistent storage of the distributed storage architecture, wherein the execution order is defined based upon the processing states of the log structures and non-volatile write index values assigned to the I/O operations (¶0087 &¶0089).
As to claim 4, Fachan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining that a log structure has a processing state indicating that metadata within the log structure has been used to update the distributed file system and that data within the log structure has not yet been stored to persistent storage of the distributed storage architecture (¶0156).
As to claim 5, Fachan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining that a log structure has a processing state indicating that metadata within the log structure has not yet been used to update the distributed file system and that data within the log structure has not yet been stored to persistent storage of the distributed storage architecture (¶0168).
As to claim 6, Fachan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the rebuild order comprises: determining the rebuild order based upon an ordering of non-volatile write index values assigned to I/O operations logged within a set of log structures having a processing state (¶0087).
As to claim 7, Fachan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: rebuilding a first in-memory representation and a second in-memory representation in parallel based upon the first in-memory representation and the second in-memory representation corresponding to log structures of I/O operations that are non-overlapping within the distributed file system and have no dependencies with respect to one another (¶0187-¶0191).
As to claim 8, Fachan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: in response to identifying a set of in-memory representations corresponding to log structures of logged I/O operations that target different files that are independent of one another, utilizing the set of in-memory representations to execute the logged I/O operations in parallel (¶0187-¶0191).
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (¶007/0245095).
As to claim 11, Watanabe discloses a computing device, comprising:
a memory comprising machine executable code; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the machine executable code to cause the machine to (¶0023):
perform a consistency point operation to replay logged I/O operations to update a distributed file system of a distributed storage architecture with metadata of the logged I/O operations and to store data of the logged I/O operations to distributed storage (¶0038);
transition the distributed file system into a consistent state with respect to the I/O operations based upon the data being stored to a non-temporary storage location within the distributed storage by the consistency point operation (¶0038); and
replay the I/O operation according to an order of ordering values so that the distributed file system is maintained in the consistent state with respect to the I/O operations being executed according to the order with which a node receives the I/O operations (¶0013, ¶0035, ¶0038)).
As to claim 12, Watanabe discloses the computing device of claim 11, wherein the machine executable code causes the machine to: in response to the metadata and data of a logged I/O operation being replayed, reclaim storage space used to log the logged I/O operation from persistent memory for storing other data (¶0008).
As to claim 13, Watanabe discloses the computing device of claim 11, wherein the machine executable code causes the machine to: detect that the distributed file system encountered a failure before the consistency point has completed; and initiate a recovery process to bring the distributed file system into the consistent state (¶0038-¶0039).
As to claim 14, Watanabe discloses the computing device of claim 13, wherein the machine executable code causes the machine to: perform the recovery process by replaying the logged I/O operations stored within log structures in persistent memory (¶0007-¶0009).
As to claim 15, Watanabe discloses the computing device of claim 11, wherein the machine executable code causes the machine to: rebuild a key value map and in-memory representations of log structures within volatile memory of the node within the distributed storage architecture (¶0043).
As to claim 16, Watanabe discloses a non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to:
replay, as part of a consistency point operation, logged I/O operations to update a distributed file system of a distributed storage architecture with metadata of the logged I/O operations and to store data of the logged I/O operations to distributed storage (¶0038);
in response to the data being stored to a non-temporary storage location within the distributed storage by the consistency point operation, place the distributed file system into a consistent state with respect to the I/O operations based upon (¶0038);
in response to detecting that the distributed file system encountered a failure before the consistency point has completed, initiate a recovery process to bring the distributed file system into the consistent state (¶0038-¶0039).
As to claim 17, Watanabe discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the machine to: utilize in-memory representations to organize, validate, and replay the logged I/O operation within log structures (¶0042-¶0046).
As to claim 18, Watanabe discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the machine to: utilize a key value map to locate the data of the logged I/O operations during replay (¶0043).
As to claim 19, Watanabe discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the machine to: perform the recovery process by replaying the logged I/O operations stored within log structures in persistent memory (¶0038-¶0039).
As to claim 20, Watanabe discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the machine to: rebuild a key value map and in-memory representations of log structures within volatile memory of a node within the distributed storage architecture (¶0042-¶0043).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. All outstanding rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art Kesvan (US 2017/0344282) discloses a storage server computing device that determines when a generated storage operation corresponds with one of a set of predefined storage operations. The storage operation is executed and a result of the execution of the storage operation is withheld from a file system, when the determining indicates that the storage operation corresponds with one of the set of predefined storage operations. A determination is made when a consistency point operation has completed. The result of the execution of the storage operation is presented to the file system, when the determining indicates that a consistency point operation has completed (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/CHARLES EHNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights