DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 10/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 and 10/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by the examiner.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Resch et al. (US 2011/0225361 A1, hereinafter Resch ‘361), in view of Resch et al. (US 2012/0030437 A1, hereinafter Resch ‘437), Datuashvili et al. (US 2010/0161554 A1), Resch (US 2014/0344394 A1, hereinafter Resch ‘394).
As to claim 1, Resch ‘361discloses the invention as claimed, including a method for execution by a storage unit of a storage network (Fig. 1), comprising:
determining to perform a delete request (Fig. 10A, 290; Fig. 10B, 300; ¶0099, “the DS unit determines if slice ranges are to be deleted based on the updated registry information 208. The determination may be based on a delete command”; ¶0107, “The determination to activate the delete data mode may be based on one or more of a command”; ¶0133, “DS managing unit or other DS device, receiving a data delete request to delete a data object”; ¶0137, “begins with DS processing unit receiving a data delete request (e.g., including the data object name or ID) from a system resource, such as the user device, another DS processing unit, the DS managing unit, and/or the storage integrity processing unit 300”);
sending a delete request to every other storage unit of a set of storage units, wherein the set of storage units includes the storage unit (Fig. 10A, 294; Abstract, “transmitting, based on the deletion policy, a delete command to the set of dispersed storage units”; ¶0135, “transmits a delete command to the set of dispersed storage units 284 that causes the set of dispersed storage units to delete the data slices of the data object stored therein”);
facilitating execution of the delete request by each storage unit of the set of storage units (¶0133, “DS managing unit or other DS device, receiving a data delete request to delete a data object stored throughout a set of dispersed storage units within a dispersed network memory of the dispersed storage network 280”; ¶0135, “a delete command to the set of dispersed storage units 284 that causes the set of dispersed storage units to delete the data slices of the data object stored therein”; claim 1, “a data delete request to delete a data object stored throughout a set of dispersed storage units within a dispersed network memory of the dispersed storage network”).
Although Resch ‘361 discloses logging the request (¶0076, “The storage unit control module 130 may save activity records (e.g., memory utilization, errors, stores, retrievals, etc.) as logs in any of the memories 134”; ¶0143, “When the DS unit determines the deletion rule to be auto archive 320, the DS processing unit sends commands to the DS units to mark the data slices as an old version and may update the virtual DSN address to physical location table 322”),
Resch ‘361 does not specifically disclose logging the deletion request.
However, Resch ‘437 discloses logging the deletion request (Fig. 11, 212; ¶0118, “at step 212 where the processing module stores a deletion marker regarding the encoded data slice when the write request pertains to deleting the encoded data slice”; claim 1, “when the write request pertains to deleting the encoded data slice, storing a deletion marker regarding the encoded data slice”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Resch ‘361 to include logging the deletion request, as taught by Resch ‘437 because it would improve the reliability of the data erasure process by allowing the system to retrieve and reprocess the delete request if the initial deletion operation fails (Resch ‘437; ¶0052).
Although Resch ‘361 discloses deletion rule indicates that the data object is to be copied prior to deletion thereof (claim 10), Resch ‘361 does not specifically disclose replicating the delete request
However, Datuashvili discloses replicating the delete request (¶0037, “Records may include, for example, a "Data" designator for initiating a live replica, a "DeleteRequest" designator for indicating an ongoing delete request for a replica”; ¶0052, “determined if all replicas have delete requests (block 850). For example, storage cluster 120-1 may review the content handle for the global index to determine whether all the replicas associated with the content handle have an outstanding delete request (e.g., "*:*:DeleteRequest", where "*" may be any ClusterID and any location, respectively)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Resch ‘361 to include replicating the delete request, as taught by Datuashvili because it would ensure that deletion command is sent to all storage locations at which copies of the data are stored (Datuashvili; ¶0037; ¶0052).
Resch ‘361 does not specifically disclose receiving a delete request acknowledgment from at least a delete threshold number of storage units of the set of storage units.
However, Resch ‘394 discloses receiving a delete request acknowledgment from at least a delete threshold number of storage units of the set of storage units (¶0079, “The write threshold W corresponds to a minimum number of DS storage units that acknowledge proper storage of their respective data slices before the DS processing module indicates proper storage of the encoded data segment. Note that the write threshold is greater than or equal to the read threshold for a given number of pillars (X)”; ¶0164, “the processing module sends a finalize command to the DS unit storage set. Note that since a write threshold number of DS units have acknowledged receiving the commit command and have made the new revision of the data object visible to those accessing the DSN memory, the DS units may now delete the previous revision of the same data object from the memory of the DS units in response to receiving a finalize command”; ¶0168; ¶0171; ¶0208-¶0209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Resch ‘361 to include receiving a delete request acknowledgment from at least a delete threshold number of storage units of the set of storage units, as taught by Resch ‘394 because it would enhance the reliability and consistency of the deletion operation across the set of the storage units (Resch ‘394; ¶0142; ¶0220).
As to claim 2, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the delete threshold is a simple majority of storage units of the set of storage units (¶0034; ¶0041; ¶0103, “determines the state of the storage set 240 based on a storage set fullness indicator 234 and at least two thresholds of comparison 236 and 238. The storage set fullness indicator 234 indicates how full the DS unit storage set memory is with stored data (e.g., data slices). The processing module 230 determines the storage set fullness indicator 234 by, for example, an absolute measure (e.g., 2.5 terabytes for the vault) or as a percentage of a memory allocation for the vault (e.g., 60% of the allocated memory amount is utilized)”; ¶0107, “activate a delete data mode to delete redundant and/or expired data and free up memory when the state is the high state for the storage set 240. The determination to activate the delete data mode may be based on one or more of a command, a vault parameter, memory availability, a dynamic parameter (e.g., rate of memory use), and/or estimated time to mitigation complete”; ¶0118, “when the DS managing unit detects that the storage set fullness falls below (or compares favorably to) the high threshold. It should be noted that this may be a result of one or more of the DS managing unit performing the mitigation function, a process has deleted data freeing up memory, and/or the user has deleted a portion of the data in response to the alert message”; -¶0119; ¶0126; ¶0131; ¶0142; ¶0143).
As to claim 3, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the storage unit is configured to manage a log (¶0076, “The storage unit control module 130 may save activity records (e.g., memory utilization, errors, stores, retrievals, etc.) as logs in any of the memories 134”; ¶0143, “When the DS unit determines the deletion rule to be auto archive 320, the DS processing unit sends commands to the DS units to mark the data slices as an old version and may update the virtual DSN address to physical location table 322”).
As to claim 4, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. In addition, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the logging the deletion request includes generating a log entry for the log (¶0076, “The storage unit control module 130 may save activity records (e.g., memory utilization, errors, stores, retrievals, etc.) as logs in any of the memories 134”; ¶0143, “When the DS unit determines the deletion rule to be auto archive 320, the DS processing unit sends commands to the DS units to mark the data slices as an old version and may update the virtual DSN address to physical location table 322”).
As to claim 5, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: appending, by every other storage unit of a set of storage units, a log entry indicating receipt of the deletion request to a storage unit log (¶0076, “The storage unit control module 130 may save activity records (e.g., memory utilization, errors, stores, retrievals, etc.) as logs in any of the memories 134”; ¶0143, “When the DS unit determines the deletion rule to be auto archive 320, the DS processing unit sends commands to the DS units to mark the data slices as an old version and may update the virtual DSN address to physical location table 322”).
As to claim 6, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether execution of the delete request by each storage unit of the set of storage units has failed; in response to a determination that the execution of the delete request has failed, facilitating election of another storage unit of the set of storage units (¶0033; ¶0037, “The DS managing unit 18 also performs network operations, network administration, and/or network maintenance. For example, the DS managing unit 18 can monitor performance of the devices and/or units of the system 10 for potential failures, determine the devices and/or unit's activation status, determine the devices' and/or units' loading, and any other system level operation that affects the performance level of the system 10”; ¶0115).
As to claim 7, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the storage unit is elected by every other storage unit of a set of storage units (¶0068; ¶0152; ¶0161).
As to claim 8, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the delete request pertains to a data object (Fig. 10A, 290; Fig. 10B, 300; ¶0099, “the DS unit determines if slice ranges are to be deleted based on the updated registry information 208. The determination may be based on a delete command”; ¶0107, “The determination to activate the delete data mode may be based on one or more of a command”; ¶0133, “DS managing unit or other DS device, receiving a data delete request to delete a data object”; ¶0137, “begins with DS processing unit receiving a data delete request (e.g., including the data object name or ID) from a system resource, such as the user device, another DS processing unit, the DS managing unit, and/or the storage integrity processing unit 300”).
As to claim 9, Resch ‘361 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: updating a revision indicator for the data object on execution of the delete request (¶0100, “Once the DS unit deletes the data slices from the memory, the DS unit saves the updated registry information as the present registry information 222 and the method branches back to step 200, where the DS unit queries the registry”; ¶0141---¶0142).
As to claims 10 and 16, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above. In addition, Resch ‘361 discloses a computing device of a storage network comprising: an interface configured to interface and communicate with a set of storage; memory that stores operational instructions; and processing circuitry operably coupled to the interface and to the memory, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the operational instructions (Fig. 1; ¶0032, “interfaces 30 support a communication link (wired, wireless, direct, via a LAN, via the network 24, etc.) between the first type of user device 14 and the DS processing unit 16. As another example, DSN interface 32 supports a plurality of communication links via the network 24 between the DSN memory 22 and the DS processing unit 16, the first type of user device 12, and/or the storage integrity processing unit 20”; ¶0053).
As to claims 11-15, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2-6, respectively.
As to claims 17-20, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 3-6, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Resch et al. (US 2011/0225466), Dhuse et al. (US 2011/0185141), Perlman (US 2008/0228827), Grube et al. (US 2011/0265143), Baptist et al. (US 2012/0226933) disclose method and apparatus for maintaining data concurrency with a dispersed storage network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNGWON CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3960. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/JUNGWON CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights