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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 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 § 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 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite: synchronizing, without using metadata, an identified mapped address range in an address space of the target component with a corresponding unmapped address range in an address space of a source component. The examiner is unable to find support within the specification for synchronizing mapped and unmapped address ranges without the use of metadata. On the contrary, support in the specification, specifically paragraph 39, recites that mapped and unmapped address ranges may be synchronized through the comparison of address locations of all mapped/unmapped address ranges. The address locations themselves are a form of metadata, and therefore the synchronization process is performed with the aid of metadata. The examiner is unable to find other examples of synchronization that does not use such addressing metadata. It would appear from the specification, that a specific form of tracking metadata is created and maintained to track writes/updates when a target component is offline/unavailable, and when the component once again becomes available, the changes are synchronized through the use of the tracking metadata (see paragraph 37). However, the tracking metadata does not keep track of unmapping operations, and the tracking data is not utilized for the synchronization of mapped and unmapped address ranges. Therefore, for the purposes of examination¸ the claimed metadata that is not used for the synchronization of unmapped and mapped address ranges is interpreted to be the tracking metadata from the specification that is created when a target component is offline/unavailable.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency from claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite: synchronizing, without using metadata, an identified mapped address range in an address space of the target component with a corresponding unmapped address range in an address space of a source component. The examiner is unable to find support within the specification for synchronizing mapped and unmapped address ranges without the use of metadata. On the contrary, support in the specification, specifically paragraph 39, recites that mapped and unmapped address ranges may be synchronized through the comparison of address locations of all mapped/unmapped address ranges. The address locations themselves are a form of metadata, and therefore the synchronization process is performed with the aid of metadata. The examiner is unable to find other examples of synchronization that does not use such addressing metadata. It would appear from the specification, that a specific form of tracking metadata is created and maintained to track writes/updates when a target component is offline/unavailable, and when the component once again becomes available, the changes are synchronized through the use of the tracking metadata (see paragraph 37). However, the tracking metadata does not keep track of unmapping operations, and the tracking data is not utilized for the synchronization of mapped and unmapped address ranges. Therefore, for the purposes of examination¸ the claimed metadata that is not used for the synchronization of unmapped and mapped address ranges is interpreted to be the tracking metadata from the specification that is created when a target component is offline/unavailable.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency from claims 1, 8 and 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (US 2021/0374155) in view of Bashyam et al. (US 2014/0195748).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor to perform operations [see paragraph 96; operations of application may be implemented by a processor executing instructions from a storage medium] comprising: detecting that a target component of a distributed data object has become available and stale [see paragraph 15; a component becomes available and stale].
Xiang does not expressly disclose synchronizing, without using tracking metadata [see 112 rejection above], an identified mapped address range in an address space of the target component with a corresponding unmapped address range in an address space of a source component.
Bashyam discloses a primary storage device that constantly maintains a unique list of files or segments stored at each storage node. A range of deleted data segments from primary storage may be determined from the list of files or segments stored at a storage node. This list differs from tracking metadata, as the list of files and segments is maintained throughout operation of the storage device and is not created for the purpose of tracking changes for an unavailable storage device, and the lists are separately maintained for each storage device. Deleted and non-deleted data segments (unmapped and mapped address ranges) may then synchronized between a primary and secondary storage based on a comparison of the lists [see Fig. 1 & paragraphs 22-24 & 40].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of determining ranges of deleted/unmapped data of Bashyam in the system of Xiang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to clear up space on secondary storage in a time-efficient manner [see Bashyam, paragraph 18].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bashyam with Xiang for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 18.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a stale time instant of the detected target component that indicates a time at which an I/O operation was last performed on the target component [see Xiang, paragraphs 28 & 30; stale logical sequence number (LSN) indicates point in time target component has become stale]; identifying a write I/O operation that was performed on the source component after the stale time instant [see paragraphs 13-15; bitmap created to track changes caused by write I/O’s]; and performing the identified write I/O operation on the target component [see paragraph 15; write operations from bitmap are synchronized to target component].
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the stale time instant is tracked using a stale log sequence number (LSN), wherein each operation performed on the distributed data object is associated with an LSN that increments from an LSN of a previously performed operation [see Xiang, paragraphs 27-28 & 30; stale logical sequence number (LSN) indicates point in time target component has become stale, each instance of write I/O is assigned a log sequence number (LSN) by the system, which provides sequencing information that is used for a variety of operations within the distributed data object].
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
detecting that the target component is unavailable [see paragraph 13; mirrored component goes offline];
receiving a write I/O operation to be performed on the distributed data object, including the target component and the source component; performing the write I/O operation on the source component; recording write I/O metadata of the performed write I/O operation in tracking metadata of the source component [see Xiang, paragraphs 13-15; new write operations performed on source components while metadata is recorded into a tracking bitmap];
receiving an unmap I/O operation to be performed on the distributed data object, including the target component and the source component; and performing the unmap I/O operation on the source component, wherein metadata of the performed unmap I/O operation is not recorded in the tracking metadata of the source component [see Bashyam, paragraph 40; when delete I/O’s (i.e. unmapping I/Os) are received, data is deleted from a primary online storage and a separate mapping table (not a tracking bitmap) is updated].
Claims 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 19 recite similar limitations as claims 1-3 and 6 and are rejected using the citations and interpretations above.
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang in view of Bashyam, and further in view of Airfocus (API).
Regarding claim 4, Xiang and Bashyam disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above as well as obtaining a set of mapped address ranges and a set of unmapped address ranges in the address space of the identified source component, using the stale LSN as input [see Bashyam, paragraphs 21-24].
The combination does not expressly disclose using an application program interface (API) to obtain the mapping information.
Airfocus discloses that an API can be a piece of software with a distinct function, a small part of an app, a whole app, or a whole server and are used for different purposes across all types of software and can be open to the public, restricted between strategic partners, for internal use only, or a composite of other data and service APIs [see Airfocus, What is an API].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Airfocus to utilize an API in the system of Xiang and Bashyam.
The motivation for doing so would have been to involve less human effort and workflows can be easily updated to become faster and more productive [see Airfocus, Benefits of using APIs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Airfocus with Xiang and Bashyam for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4, 11 and 18.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the set of unmapped address ranges include a first address range in which nothing has been written and a second address range that has been unmapped after data has been written to the second address range [see Bashyam, paragraphs 23-24 & 40; system maintains list of files and data segments to identify holes defining ranges where no data is written, over time the list is updated due to writes and updates to reflect deleted data segments creating new ranges of unmapped ranges].
Claims 11-12 and 18 recite a similar limitation as claims 4-5 and are rejected using the citations and interpretations above.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang in view of Bashyam and further in view of Alkalay et al. (US 2022/0342542).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xiang and Bashyam discloses the system of claim 6 as discussed above.
The combination does not expressly disclose performing the unmap I/O operation on the source component includes performing the unmap I/O operation as a full stripe erasure on the source component and at least one other available component of the distributed data object.
Alkalay discloses a storage system in which a stripe is written across a plurality of SSD drives, and an unmap command deletes the portions of the stripe stored at the plurality of SSD storage devices [see paragraph 51].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the stripe deletion of Alkalay in the systemof Xiang and Bashyam.
The motivation for doing so would have been to free up space and reduces the need to run internal garbage collectors [see Alkalay, paragraph 51].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alkalay with Xiang and Bashyam for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7, 14 and 20.
Claims 14 and 20 recite a similar limitation as claim 7 and are rejected using the citations and interpretations above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Levy (US 2006/0200639) – Generally teaches a system for updating backup storage with changes made to a source storage device when a storage device become out-of-sync.
Xu (US 2023/0018790) – Generally teaches tracking changes made to a source component using tracking metadata and LSN numbers.
Tiwari (US 20180278685) – Generally teaches resynchronization of deleted data between primary and secondary storage devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137