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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claims 1-2, 4, and 6-14, the term “the single-node server” is indefinite because earlier in the claim, at least one single-node server was declared, and so it is unclear to which single-node server the claim refers to if there is more than one. It is suggested that claim 1 be amended to “…storage parameters of a single-node server of at least one single-node server”.
For claim 8, the term “the at least single-node server input” is indefinite because earlier, three separate instances of “at least one single-node server” were declared: one in claim 1, one in claim 7, and one in claim 8, and so it is unclear to which at least one the claim refers. It is suggested that claim 8 be amended to “receiving the second parameters of an input of the at least one single-node server of the obtaining…”.
For claims 15-20, the term “the single-node server” is indefinite because earlier in the claim, more than one “single-node server” instances: one in the preamble and potentially more than one in “at least one single-node server”, and so it is unclear to which single-node server the claim refers to. It is suggested that claim 15 be amended to “15. A single-node server of at least one single-node server, comprising a processor…” and “obtaining storage parameters of the single-node server”.
For claims 3 and 17, the term “the M second data blocks” is indefinite because it is inconsistent with the other claims. It is suggested it be amended to “the second data blocks”.
For claims 5-6 and 19-20, the term “the index files” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claims 5 and 19 be amended to “information in [[the]] index files stored”.
For claims 5 and 19, the term “the corresponding disks” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claims 5 and 19 be amended to “[[the]] corresponding disks”.
For claims 5 and 19, the term “association relationship” is indefinite because two instances of “association relationship” were declared earlier in claims 4/18 and 5/19, and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested claims 5 be amended to “the retrieving at least N data blocks comprising [[an]] the association relationship with the lost data blocks” and claim 19 to “to receive at least N data blocks comprising [[an]] the association relationship with the lost data blocks”.
For claim 10, the term “the lost data blocks” (two instances) lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested the first instance be amended to “[[the]] lost data blocks”.
For claims 11-12, the terms “the N first data blocks” and “the M second data blocks” are indefinite because for each, three instances were declared earlier (two in claim 1 and one in claim 11), and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested that claim 1 be amended to “the original data comprise the N first data blocks and the M second data blocks” and claim 11 be amended to “determining the N first data blocks and the M second data blocks which are obtained after the original data to be stored are processed”.
For claim 13, the term “the quantity of disks” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested the claim be amended to “[[the]] a quantity of disks”.
For claim 17, the term “the index information” is indefinite because two instances of “index information” were declared earlier and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested the claim be amended to “the memory to determine the index information of the data blocks corresponding”.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
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 1-2, 4, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2020/0250036 A1), and further in view of Dubnicki (US 2013/0282976 A1).
For claim 1,
Zhang teaches a data storage method, comprising: obtaining storage parameters of at least one [] server, wherein the storage parameters represent parameters used when slicing processing and encoding processing are performed on original data to be stored (see abstract, paragraphs [0002-0003], [0015], and other locations: in a RAID system, a server stores data in data blocks over different disks, organized in stripes; view dividing the data into stripes and data blocks as said slicing; view creating parity blocks as said encoding; view number of available disks, stripe width, block size, etc. as said parameter); according to the storage parameters of the [] server, determining N first data blocks and M second data blocks which are obtained after the original data to be stored are processed, wherein any N data blocks in the N first data blocks and the M second data blocks comprise an association relationship with M data blocks other than the any N data blocks in the N first data blocks and the M second data blocks, N and M are both positive integers, and M is less than or equal to N (see [0003] and other locations: The following always occurs in RAID5 by definition: the written original data is divided into stripes and data blocks (or stripe unit size) among D number of disks, where each stripe length has D data blocks, one of which is a calculated parity data block. If the amount of data in the original written data is processed into M+N blocks (M, N, and M+N are always integers, N blocks being the parity blocks, and M,N, are usually there are less parity blocks than data blocks), then any selected N blocks and corresponding M blocks have an association relationship with each other because N+M does not change and is equal to the processed data size and N is parity of M); and respectively storing data blocks corresponding to the original data into different disks of the [] server (always in RAID 5), wherein the data blocks corresponding to the original data comprise N first data blocks and M second data blocks (see rational above).
Zhang does not explicitly teach the server being a single-node server.
However, Dubnicki teaches the server being a single-node server (see [0005] and other locations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include “single-node server”, as taught by Dubnicki, because each one of Zhang and Dubnicki teach RAID 5 storage systems (see [0009]) therefore they are analogous arts and because NAS can be either in a single or cluster (see [0005] and other locations).
For claim 2,
The combination of Zhang and Dubnicki teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Zhang further teaches wherein after the respectively storing data blocks corresponding to the original data into different disks of the single-node server, the method further comprises: determining index information of the data blocks corresponding to the original data; and generating index files according to the index information, and storing the index files into the disks (see [0016-0017] and other locations: index files are always stored on disk)
For claim 4,
The combination of Zhang and Dubnicki teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Zhang further teaches wherein when it is determined that a maximum of M data blocks are lost, the method further comprises: retrieving at least N data blocks comprising an association relationship with lost data blocks; performing a data recovery operation on the lost data blocks to obtain a maximum of M recovered data blocks by using the at least N data blocks comprising the association relationship with the lost data blocks; and storing the maximum of M recovered data blocks in available disks of the single-node server (RAID is for recovery, recovery could be full/maximum), wherein different recovered data blocks are stored in different disks (see [0004]: included in RAID rebuilding).
For claim 11,
The combination of Zhang and Dubnicki teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Zhang further teaches wherein the storage parameters comprise first parameters and second parameters, and the according to the storage parameters of the single-node server, determining N first data blocks and M second data blocks which are obtained after the original data to be stored are processed, comprises: obtaining the N first data blocks by performing slicing processing on the original data according to the first parameters; and obtaining the M second data blocks by performing encoding processing on the N first data blocks according to the second parameters (see rational in rejection to claim 1: one set is divided into data blocks and second set is encoded parity; N,M can be interchanged).
For claim 12,
The combination of Zhang and Dubnicki teaches the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons above.
Dubnicki further teaches wherein the obtaining the M second data blocks by performing encoding processing on the N first data blocks according to the second parameters, comprises: obtaining the M second data blocks by performing erasure code processing on the N first data blocks according to the second parameters; wherein the erasure code comprises at least one of array erasure codes, RS erasure codes or LDPC erasure codes (see [0009] and other locations).
For claim 13,
The combination of Zhang and Dubnicki teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Zhang further teaches wherein M and N comprise a following relationship: M≤(N+1)/2; and/or, a ratio of a sum of M and N to the quantity of disks of the single-node server is an integer (see rationale in rejection to claim 1).
For claim 14,
The combination of Zhang and Dubnicki teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Zhang further teaches wherein the respectively storing data blocks corresponding to the original data into different disks of the single-node server, comprises: respectively storing the data blocks corresponding to the original data into the different disks according to a load balance principle and available storage space of the different disks in the single-node server (see [0024], [0041], and other locations).
For claims 15-16 and 18,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-2 and 4; claims 15-16 and 18 are single node server.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-10, 17, and 19-20 are 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 and all 35 USC § 112 rejections are overcome and depending on how they are overcome.
Reasons for Allowability
For dependent claim 3, 5-10, 17, and 19-20,
The claims are allowable because although prior art has been found to teach indexing, no prior art was found to teach indexing specifics as it pertains to the other portions of the claim, in a manner that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine it as an obvious inclusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114