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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, 17/354247 filed on 06/22/2021, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation recited “storing said plurality of file extents into a local non-transitory store coupled to the file block write/acknowledgment circuit” should be “storing said plurality of file extents into a local non-transitory store coupled to a file block write/acknowledgment circuit”.
Limitation recited “transmitting an acknowledge indicia …, by means of a file block write/acknowledgment circuit coupled to the local network interface” should be “transmitting an acknowledge indicia …, by means of the file block write/acknowledgment circuit coupled to the local network interface”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation recited in claim 1, “whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits; and releasing a resource for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian” appears to be incomplete. For examination purpose, the limitation has been interpreted as the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 of the parent application (i.e. US12,182,429), “whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits is improved by releasing a resource for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian”.
,
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,182,429. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons shown below.
Instant Application 18/899049
US Patent 12,182,429
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of operation for at least one processor to operate as a versioned file block location tracker apparatus for intermediation between a plurality of librarian circuits and a remote file server, the method comprising:
receiving, from a processor core via a local network interface, a plurality of file block commit request indicia into a non-transitory media for various file extents of a version controlled file;
storing said plurality of file extents into a local non-transitory store coupled to the file block write/acknowledgement circuit;
transmitting an acknowledge indicia for a file commit to a sender of file block commit request, by means of a file block write/acknowledgement circuit coupled to the local network interface;
incrementing a number of unfulfilled file block commit requests of file block commit request indicia yet unfulfilled for the version controlled file;
upon exceeding a threshold of parallelism of a count of unfulfilled file block commit requests, triggering a file write operation, according to ranks of parallelizable execution and regardless of order of reception into the non-transitory media store, for all stored file extents of the version-controlled file into a remote multi-disk non-transitory media; and
reinitializing the count of the number of unfulfilled file block commit request indicia, whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits; and
releasing a resource for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian,
wherein data at a primary volume are synchronized with data at a secondary volume.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of operation for at least one processor to operate as a versioned file block location tracker (tracker) apparatus for intermediation between a plurality of librarian circuits and a remote file server, the method comprising:
receiving, from a processor core via a local network interface, a plurality of file block commit request indicia into a non-transitory media for various file extents of a version controlled file;
storing said plurality of file extents into a local non-transitory store coupled to the file block write/acknowledgement circuit;
transmitting an acknowledge indicia for a file commit to a sender of file block commit request, by means of a file block write/acknowledgement circuit coupled to the local network interface;
incrementing a number of unfulfilled file block commit requests of file block commit request indicia yet unfulfilled for the version controlled file;
upon exceeding a threshold of parallelism of a count of unfulfilled file block commit requests, triggering a file write operation, according to ranks of parallelizable execution and regardless of order of reception into the non-transitory media store, for all stored file extents of the version controlled file into a remote multi-disk non-transitory media; and
reinitializing the count of the number of unfulfilled file block commit request indicia, whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits is improved by releasing a resource for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian, wherein the threshold of parallelism is a function of a number of parallel disk head actuators in a multi-disk array (Dna), wherein a function [f(Dna)] of the number of parallel disk head actuators in the multi-disk array is an integer multiple of an integer of a logarithm of the number of parallel disk head actuators [n*Integer(log Dna)], and
whereby data at a primary (R1) volume are synchronized with data at a secondary (R2) volume.
The limitations recited in claim 1 of instant application are substantially similar as the limitations recited in claim 1 of US Patent 12,182,429. The differences between the two claims are the additional elements in the claim 1 of the patent, specifically, “wherein the threshold of parallelism is a function of a number of parallel disk head actuators in a multi-disk array (Dna), wherein a function [f(Dna)] of the number of parallel disk head actuators in the multi-disk array is an integer multiple of an integer of a logarithm of the number of parallel disk head actuators [n*Integer(log Dna)]”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to broaden the scope of claims in a continuation/child application by removing elements such as detailed limitation defining the threshold of parallelism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek Yuval et al. (US 5,889,935), hereinafter Ofek in view of Gill et al. (US 2007/0220200), hereinafter Gill, and further in view of Cargille et al. (US 2011/0307449), hereinafter Cargille and Davis et al.(US 2014/0006465), hereinafter Davis.
Regarding claim 1, Ofek teaches a computer-implemented method of operation for at least one processor to operate as a versioned file block location tracker apparatus for intermediation between a plurality of librarian circuits and a remote file server, the method comprising:
receiving, from a processor core via a local network interface, a plurality of file block commit request indicia into a non-transitory media for various file extents of a version controlled file (Ofek, Col.6, 12-19, The host computer system 12 is coupled to a first and primary data storage system 14; Col.6, lines 29-48, The primary data storage system controller 16 includes at least one channel adapter (C.A.) 26 which is well known to those skilled in the art and interfaces with host processing system 12; Col.16, lines 34-41; when the host has requested a write access to a volume that is local. In step 409, data from the host is written to cache, and the track tables are updated to reflect that the old data on disk is invalid in view of the new data from the host, and that a write operation to disk is pending for the invalid track or tracks on disk; Col.31, lines 16-30, The log file may contain a number of different versions of data written to the same location or track in the dataset; Col.41, line 60 – Col.41, line 14, keeping multiple versions of tracks in cache will tie up cache resources, so a count of such old versions of tracks should be kept (incremented when a copy is made, and decremented when the track cache slot is deallocated upon receipt of acknowledgement of a remote write operation), and no more than a certain number of such old versions should be permitted in cache at any given time));
storing said plurality of file extents into a local non-transitory store coupled to the file block write/acknowledgement circuit (Ofek, Col.16, lines 33-41, In step 409, data from the host is written to cache; col.9, lines 8-24; Fig.4);
transmitting an acknowledge indicia for a file commit to a sender of file block commit request, by means of a file block write/acknowledgement circuit coupled to the local network interface (Ofek, Col.16, lines 42-50, a device end (DE) signal is returned to the host to signal completion of the write operation; Col.17, lines 52-67, a device end (DE) signal is presented back to the host that initiated the write request (step 422); Col.37, lines 13-33, when the link adapter 236 receives an acknowledgement of the remote write from the secondary data storage system 246, the link adapter signals the channel adapter 226, and the channel adapter "reconnects" with the host 212 and returns a device end (DE) signal to the host; Fig.4; Note – link adapter 236 is a component of integrated cached disk array (e.g. file write circuit);
incrementing a number of unfulfilled file block commit requests of file block commit request indicia yet unfulfilled for the version controlled file (Ofek, Col.21, lines 36-63, The data storage system containing the primary (R1) volume increments the "invalid tracks" count each time a write operation for the secondary (R2) volume is placed in the FIFO link transmission queue (i.e. unfulfilled) for transmission over the communication link to the data storage system containing the secondary (R2) volume (step 415 of FIG. 8); Fig.16);
upon exceeding a threshold of parallelism of a count of unfulfilled file block commit requests, triggering a file write operation (Ofek, Col.21, lines 36-63, In order to determine whether or not any remote write is pending to a secondary (R2) volume and if so, to determine whether the number of remote write pending tracks has reached the value of the skew parameter), according to ranks of parallelizable execution and regardless of order of reception into the non-transitory media store, for all stored file extents of the version-controlled file into a remote multi-disk non-transitory media (Ofek, Col.19, lines 15-25, When the skew parameter is reached, the remote mirroring operational mode switches to the pre-determined synchronous or semi-synchronous mode for the remotely mirrored (R1, R2) pair; Col.18, lines 46-61; Col.7, lines 14-26, a secondary data storage device 48 including a plurality of storage devices 50a 50c)); and
reinitializing the count of the number of unfulfilled file block commit request indicia, whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits; and releasing a resource for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian (Ofek, Col.21, lines 36-63, The "invalid tracks" counts for the volumes are set to zero during the initial configuration of the system, and an "invalid tracks" count of zero indicates that the secondary (R2) volume is fully synchronized with its respective primary (R1) volume … and decremented each time that the data storage system containing the primary (R1) volume receives an acknowledgement of completion of the write operation in the remote data storage system (steps 419 to 420 in FIG. 8)),
wherein data at a primary volume are synchronized with data at a secondary volume (Ofek, col.8, lines 47-60, Only after data is safely stored in both the primary and secondary data storage system, as detected by an acknowledgement from the secondary storage system to the primary storage system, does the primary data storage system acknowledge to the primary host computer that the data is synchronized).
Ofek teaches upon exceeding a threshold of parallelism of a count of unfulfilled file block commit requests, triggering a file write operation, nevertheless, Ofek does not explicitly teach the triggering of a file write operation is according to ranks of parallelizable execution and regardless of order of reception into the non-transitory media store, as claimed. Ofek also does not explicitly teach whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits is improved by releasing the resources for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian, as claimed.
However, Ofek in view of Gill teaches upon exceeding a threshold of parallelism of a count of unfulfilled file block commit requests, triggering a file write operation, according to ranks of parallelizable execution and regardless of order of reception into the non-transitory media store (Ofek, Col.21, lines 36-63; Gill, [0010], A method of destaging the write cache includes storing ones of the write groups in the write cache temporarily responsive to the ones of the write groups being written to their respective arrays. The write groups stored in the write cache are assigned to a global queue. The write groups in the global queue are ordered by ages of the write groups. A quantity of write groups is selected for attempted destaging to the arrays responsive to a predetermined high threshold for the global queue and to sizes and the ages of the write groups in the global queue. The selected quantity is allocated among the arrays responsive to quantities of certain ones of the write groups in the global queue, so that the arrays have respective allocation quantities of write groups for destaging. Ones of the write groups in the write cache are destaged to the arrays. Write groups are destaged to such an array responsive to i) the selected allocation quantity for the array and ii) the sequences of the write groups in the array; [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ofek to incorporate teachings of Gill to write data into RAID storages based on ranks of write groups regardless the order of command reception. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ofek with Gill because it improves efficiency and performance of the storage system disclosed in Ofek by determining an optimized scheduling algorithm to achieve full throughput potential of the storage system (Gill, [0081]).
The combination of Ofek does not explicitly teach whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits is improved by releasing the resources for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian, as claimed.
However, the combination of Ofek in view of Cargille teaches whereby throughput of virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits is improved by releasing the resources for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian (Cargille, [0057], In conjunction with sending a request to write the object table to the store 250, a flush command may also be sent to the storage controller 240. A flush command instructs the storage controller 240 to write all data from its volatile memory that has not already been written to the non-volatile memory of the store 250; [0059], After a checkpoint is stable/durable, space used for any old and unused copies of objects (or portions thereof) may be reused).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ofek to incorporate teachings of Cargille to perform a flush command on a cache memory as soon as a link adapter (in Ofek) receives an acknowledgement message from a remote data storage system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the combination of Ofek with Cargille because it improves performance of the storage system disclosed in the combination of Ofek by writing requests to a volatile memory until it reaches a preset threshold.
The combination of Ofek teaches throughput of machines attached to the librarian circuits is improved by releasing the resources for reuse as soon as a write acknowledgement is received by the librarian, nevertheless, the combination of Ofek does not explicitly teach the machines are virtual machines, as claimed.
However, the combination of Ofek in view of Davis teaches virtual machines attached to the librarian circuits (Davis, [0164], filesystem-level information can be forwarded by executing an operating system with a desired server capability (e.g., Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Core) in a virtual machine; [0167]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ofek to incorporate teachings of Davis to include virtual machines to process the filesystem information received and the virtual machines can be coupled to librarian circuits/processors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the combination of Ofek with Davis because it improves efficiency and flexibility of the storage system disclosed in the combination of Ofek by simplifying memory access/storage management and providing flexible and extensible network storage systems by providing scalable remote storage solutions such as virtual machines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NANCI N WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am -6pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/NANCI N WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136