DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action, based on application 18/929,881 filed 29 October 2024, is filed in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks filed 30 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed 30 December 2025 in response to the Office Action mailed 1 October 2025, have been fully considered below.
Specification Objections
Applicant’s replacement drawings filed 30 December 2025 addresses the issues noted by the Office and are accepted.
Claim Objections
The Office withdraws the previously issued objections in view of applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to the claims alleging cited prior art fails to disclose each feature of Claim 1 as amended. Specifically, the applicant alleges XU fails to disclose “a first identifier of a first tier”, “a second identifier of a second tier corresponding to the first tier”, and “the data is stored in a destination disk of the second tier based on the second identifier [of the second tier]” as recited in the claim. While the applicant recognizes XU discloses ‘content-based’ identifiers that associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage units. While the applicant states XU does not appear to disclose the noted claim language and further notes what XU discloses, applicant’s remarks does not further argue why XU does not teach applicant’s claim language. The Office asserts XU teaches applicant’s claimed identifier since XU’s identifiers are associated with locations in storage units, thus the identifier identifies the storage units and hence the storage tier since “A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated” – XU at Col 5, Lines 39-55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU in further view of MATSUDA et al (US PGPub 2013/0185505).
With respect to Claim 1, XU discloses a method for migrating a file, comprising:
determining, at a source storage device, a file to be migrated in response to receiving a request for migrating a file (Fig 5 – Step 501 – “Generate a list of candidate files to be migrated from a source tier to a target tier based on a policy; Col 9, Lines 18-41 – “Candidate builder 303 is configured to identify a list of candidate files stored in storage 305 that are suitable for being migrated to target tier 302 based on one or more policies 306”), wherein multiple disks in the source storage device are divided into first multiple tiers based on types of disks (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”);
acquiring data of the file and a first identifier of a first tier for storing the data among the first multiple tiers (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”); and
sending the data and the first identifier to a destination storage device, wherein a second identifier of a second tier corresponding to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device is determined based on the first identifier of the first tier, wherein the data is stored in a destination disk of the second tier based on the second identifier (Col 8, Lines 30-48 – “data movement engine is configured to scan the containers via the container manager to locate and retrieve the segments, and to move the segments specified in the source candidate index to a target tier in a bulk manner”; Col 9, Lines 4-18 – “system 300 includes a source tier 301 communicatively coupled {analogous to ‘a second tier corresponding to the first tier’} to target tier 302 for the purpose of migrating data from source tier 301 to target 302. Source tier 301 and target tier 302 may represent different storage servers …”), and wherein multiple disks in the destination storage device are divided into the second multiple tiers based on the types of disks (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”).
XU may not explicitly disclose wherein a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device is determined.
However, MATSUDA discloses wherein a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device is determined (¶[0363] – “In the tier-maintained migration processing, the data elements in the migration source actual page are migrated to the actual page in the tier of the same ID as the ID of the migration source tier (tier type)”; ¶[0455] Furthermore, the types of tiers 303 are not limited to the classification by attributes of the above-mentioned storage device types, but it is also preferable to classify the tiers by the attribute of combining the above-mentioned storage device types and the RAID type from RAID1 to RAID5 and others or the attribute of combining the above-mentioned storage device types, the performance of the above-mentioned storage devices (such as the access speed), the storage capacity, and the RAID type from RAID1 to RAID5 and others.”).
XU and MATSUDA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data migration systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of XU and MATSUDA before him or her, to modify a basis for determining a target tier for migration of XU to include selecting the target tier based on a performance correspondence as taught by MATSUDA. A motivation for doing so would have been to provide the same level of data access service such that an end user does not notice any practical changes in service resulting from the migration (¶[0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine XU and MATSUDA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 8, XU discloses a method for migrating a file, comprising:
receiving, at a destination storage device, data of a file to be migrated from a source storage device and a first identifier of a first tier for storing the data among first multiple tiers of the source storage device (Col 8, Lines 54-61 – “prior to migrating a segment to a target tier, data movement engine 106 is configured to transmit representative data (e.g., fingerprint) of the segment to the target tier”; Col 12, Lines 21-24 – “The segment candidates indicated in the candidate index are subsequently migrated to the target tier in a bulk manner.”), wherein multiple disks in the source storage device are divided into the first multiple tiers based on types of disks (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”);
determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device based on the first identifier of the first tier (Col 8, Lines 30-48 – “data movement engine is configured to scan the containers via the container manager to locate and retrieve the segments, and to move the segments specified in the source candidate index to a target tier in a bulk manner”; Col 9, Lines 4-18 – “system 300 includes a source tier 301 communicatively coupled {analogous to ‘a second tier corresponding to the first tier’} to target tier 302 for the purpose of migrating data from source tier 301 to target 302. Source tier 301 and target tier 302 may represent different storage servers …”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”), wherein multiple disks in the destination storage device are divided into the second multiple tiers based on the types of disks (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”); and
storing the data in a destination disk of the second tier based on the second identifier (Abstract – “In response to a response received from the target storage tier indicating that the segment has not been stored in the target tier based on the fingerprint, a storage space of the target tier estimated for migrating the file is incremented. One or more segments of the file that have not been stored in the target tier are migrated if the one or more segments of the file fit in the target storage tier based on the estimated storage space of the target tier.”).
XU may not explicitly disclose determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device based on the first identifier of the first tier.
However, MATSUDA discloses determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device based on the first identifier of the first tier (¶[0363] – “In the tier-maintained migration processing, the data elements in the migration source actual page are migrated to the actual page in the tier of the same ID as the ID of the migration source tier (tier type)”; ¶[0455] Furthermore, the types of tiers 303 are not limited to the classification by attributes of the above-mentioned storage device types, but it is also preferable to classify the tiers by the attribute of combining the above-mentioned storage device types and the RAID type from RAID1 to RAID5 and others or the attribute of combining the above-mentioned storage device types, the performance of the above-mentioned storage devices (such as the access speed), the storage capacity, and the RAID type from RAID1 to RAID5 and others.”).
XU and MATSUDA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data migration systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of XU and MATSUDA before him or her, to modify a basis for determining a target tier for migration of XU to include selecting the target tier based on a performance correspondence as taught by MATSUDA. A motivation for doing so would have been to provide the same level of data access service such that an end user does not notice any practical changes in service resulting from the migration (¶[0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine XU and MATSUDA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 14, XU discloses a system for migrating a file, comprising:
a source storage device (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”; Col 5, Lines 52-55 – “A storage unit or storage system can be either a source tier with respect to a first remote storage system or a target tier with respect to a second remote storage system, as files can be migrated in both ways”); and
a destination storage device (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”; Col 5, Lines 52-55 – “A storage unit or storage system can be either a source tier with respect to a first remote storage system or a target tier with respect to a second remote storage system, as files can be migrated in both ways”);
wherein the source storage device is configured to:
determine a file to be migrated in response to receiving a request for migrating a file (Fig 5 – Step 501 – “Generate a list of candidate files to be migrated from a source tier to a target tier based on a policy; Col 9, Lines 18-41 – “Candidate builder 303 is configured to identify a list of candidate files stored in storage 305 that are suitable for being migrated to target tier 302 based on one or more policies 306”), wherein multiple disks in the source storage device are divided into first multiple tiers based on types of disks (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”);
acquire data of the file and a first identifier of a first tier for storing the data among the first multiple tiers (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”); and
send the data and the first identifier to the destination storage device (Col 8, Lines 30-48 – “data movement engine is configured to scan the containers via the container manager to locate and retrieve the segments, and to move the segments specified in the source candidate index to a target tier in a bulk manner”; Col 9, Lines 4-18 – “system 300 includes a source tier 301 communicatively coupled {analogous to ‘a second tier corresponding to the first tier’} to target tier 302 for the purpose of migrating data from source tier 301 to target 302. Source tier 301 and target tier 302 may represent different storage servers …”); and
wherein the destination storage device is configured to:
receive the data of the file to be migrated and the first identifier from the source storage device (Col 8, Lines 54-61 – “prior to migrating a segment to a target tier, data movement engine 106 is configured to transmit representative data (e.g., fingerprint) of the segment to the target tier”; Col 12, Lines 21-24 – “The segment candidates indicated in the candidate index are subsequently migrated to the target tier in a bulk manner.”);
determine a second identifier of a second tier corresponding to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device based on the first identifier of the first tier (Col 8, Lines 30-48 – “data movement engine is configured to scan the containers via the container manager to locate and retrieve the segments, and to move the segments specified in the source candidate index to a target tier in a bulk manner”; Col 9, Lines 4-18 – “system 300 includes a source tier 301 communicatively coupled {analogous to ‘a second tier corresponding to the first tier’} to target tier 302 for the purpose of migrating data from source tier 301 to target 302. Source tier 301 and target tier 302 may represent different storage servers …”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”), wherein multiple disks in the destination storage device are divided into the second multiple tiers based on the types of disks (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”); and
store the data in a destination disk of the second tier based on the second identifier (Abstract – “In response to a response received from the target storage tier indicating that the segment has not been stored in the target tier based on the fingerprint, a storage space of the target tier estimated for migrating the file is incremented. One or more segments of the file that have not been stored in the target tier are migrated if the one or more segments of the file fit in the target storage tier based on the estimated storage space of the target tier.”).
XU may not explicitly disclose determine a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device based on the first identifier of the first tier.
However, MATSUDA discloses determine a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among second multiple tiers of the destination storage device based on the first identifier of the first tier (¶[0363] – “In the tier-maintained migration processing, the data elements in the migration source actual page are migrated to the actual page in the tier of the same ID as the ID of the migration source tier (tier type)”; ¶[0455] Furthermore, the types of tiers 303 are not limited to the classification by attributes of the above-mentioned storage device types, but it is also preferable to classify the tiers by the attribute of combining the above-mentioned storage device types and the RAID type from RAID1 to RAID5 and others or the attribute of combining the above-mentioned storage device types, the performance of the above-mentioned storage devices (such as the access speed), the storage capacity, and the RAID type from RAID1 to RAID5 and others.”).
XU and MATSUDA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data migration systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of XU and MATSUDA before him or her, to modify a basis for determining a target tier for migration of XU to include selecting the target tier based on a performance correspondence as taught by MATSUDA. A motivation for doing so would have been to provide the same level of data access service such that an end user does not notice any practical changes in service resulting from the migration (¶[0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine XU and MATSUDA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 1.
XU further discloses wherein determining a file to be migrated comprises: receiving a request for migrating a file (Col 14, Lines 26-31 – “When a request for migration is received, one of bulk migration module 801 and regular migration module 802 is selected and invoked based on storage configuration and/or statistics 804, such as, for example, user requirements and/or data requirements of the data to be migrated.; Fig 5 – Step 501 – “Generate a list of candidate files to be migrated from a source tier to a target tier based on a policy; Col 9, Lines 18-41 – “Candidate builder 303 is configured to identify a list of candidate files stored in storage 305 that are suitable for being migrated to target tier 302 based on one or more policies 306”); and determining a file identifier of the file to be migrated based on the request (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 2.
XU further discloses wherein acquiring the data of the file and a first identifier of a first tier for storing the data among the first multiple tiers comprises: determining block identifiers of data blocks corresponding to the file based on the file identifier; and acquiring the data and the first identifier of the first tier for storing the data blocks based on the block identifiers of the data blocks (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 3.
XU further discloses wherein acquiring the data and the first identifier of the first tier for storing the data blocks based on the block identifiers of the data blocks comprises: acquiring the data blocks from a disk storing the data blocks based on the block identifiers; and determining a tier where the disk for storing the data blocks is located among the first multiple tiers as the first tier (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 3.
XU further discloses wherein the source storage device comprises a data volume layer (Col 4, Lines 35-37 – “the storage units 108-109 may be organized into one or more volumes of Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)”), and determining block identifiers of data blocks corresponding to the file based on the file identifier comprises: determining the block identifiers of the data blocks corresponding to the file identifier through the data volume layer (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 1.
XU further discloses wherein sending the data and the first identifier to a destination storage device comprises: adding the first identifier to attributes of the file; and sending the data and the attributes of the file to the destination storage device (Fig 10, Step 1002 – “For each segment of the file, transmit a fingerprint of the segment to a target tier to determine whether the segment exists in the target tier; Fig 10, Step 1004 – “Transmit the segment to the target tier if the segment has not been stored in the target tier”).
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 8.
XU further discloses wherein storing the data in a destination disk of the second tier comprises: dividing the data into multiple data blocks; and storing data blocks among the multiple data blocks in the destination disk of the second tier based on the second identifier (Abstract – “According to one embodiment, for at least one of segments {each segment equivalent to a divided data block} of a file to be migrated from a source storage tier to a target storage tier, a fingerprint of the segment is transmitted to the target storage tier. In response to a response received from the target storage tier indicating that the segment has not been stored in the target tier based on the fingerprint, a storage space of the target tier estimated for migrating the file is incremented. One or more segments of the file that have not been stored in the target tier are migrated if the one or more segments of the file fit in the target storage tier based on the estimated storage space of the target tier.”).
With respect to Claim 15, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the system according to claim 14.
XU further discloses wherein determining a file to be migrated comprises: receiving a request for migrating a file (Col 14, Lines 26-31 – “When a request for migration is received, one of bulk migration module 801 and regular migration module 802 is selected and invoked based on storage configuration and/or statistics 804, such as, for example, user requirements and/or data requirements of the data to be migrated.; Fig 5 – Step 501 – “Generate a list of candidate files to be migrated from a source tier to a target tier based on a policy; Col 9, Lines 18-41 – “Candidate builder 303 is configured to identify a list of candidate files stored in storage 305 that are suitable for being migrated to target tier 302 based on one or more policies 306”); and determining a file identifier of the file to be migrated based on the request (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 16, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the system according to claim 15.
XU further discloses wherein acquiring the data of the file and a first identifier of a first tier for storing the data among the first multiple tiers comprises: determining block identifiers of data blocks corresponding to the file based on the file identifier; and acquiring the data and the first identifier of the first tier for storing the data blocks based on the block identifiers of the data blocks (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 17, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the system according to claim 16.
XU further discloses wherein acquiring the data and the first identifier of the first tier for storing the data blocks based on the block identifiers of the data blocks comprises: acquiring the data blocks from a disk storing the data blocks based on the block identifiers; and determining t a tier where the disk for storing the data blocks is located among the first multiple tiers as the first tier (Col 2, Line 52 through Col 3, Line 19 – “segments of the candidate files are identified based on the candidate index and storage containers that contain the identified segments are scanned to retrieve the identified segments from the storage”; Col 8, Lines 10-29 – “file system control utilizes a tree of content-based identifiers (e.g. fingerprints) to associate a file with data segments and their locations in storage unit(s).”).
With respect to Claim 18, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the system according to claim 14.
XU further discloses wherein sending the data and the first identifier to a destination storage device comprises: adding the first identifier to attributes of the file; and sending the data and the attributes of the file to the destination storage device (Fig 10, Step 1002 – “For each segment of the file, transmit a fingerprint of the segment to a target tier to determine whether the segment exists in the target tier; Fig 10, Step 1004 – “Transmit the segment to the target tier if the segment has not been stored in the target tier”).
Claim(s) 7, 9-12, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU in further view of MATSUDA and THOMPSON et al (US PGPub 2025/0244887).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 6.
XU and MATSUDA may not explicitly disclose wherein sending the data and the attributes of the file to the destination storage device comprises: sending the attributes to the destination storage device via extended attributes remote procedure call.
However, THOMPSON discloses wherein sending the data and the attributes of the file to the destination storage device comprises: sending the attributes to the destination storage device via extended attributes remote procedure call (¶[0129] – “In some examples, the network adapter 1004 further communicates (e.g., using Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)) via a cluster fabric and/or another network (e.g., a WAN (Wide Area Network)) (not shown) with storage devices of a distributed storage system to process storage operations associated with data stored thereon.”).
XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data migration systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON before him or her, to modify the connection between storage systems of the combination of XU and MATSUDA to include use of a transmission protocol as taught by THOMPSON. A motivation for doing so would have been to utilize a well-known communication protocol to enable the source and destination storage systems to talk to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the method according to claim 8.
XU and MATSUDA may not explicitly disclose wherein determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among the second multiple tiers of the destination storage device comprises: acquiring a mapping relationship between the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers; and acquiring the second identifier corresponding to the first identifier based on the mapping relationship.
However, THOMPSON discloses wherein determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among the second multiple tiers of the destination storage device comprises: acquiring a mapping relationship between the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers; and acquiring the second identifier corresponding to the first identifier based on the mapping relationship (¶[0029] – “a mapping is created within the mappings between source and destination identifiers 304 based upon encountering the block for the first time (e.g., the first time encountering a block that is part of the object). The mapping is created to map a source object identifier used by the source cluster 104 to reference the object at the source object store 106 and a new destination object identifier assigned for the object at the destination cluster 116 (e.g., an identifier of a migrated object that will be stored within the destination capacity tier 122 as a migrated copy of the object from the source object store 106). In some embodiments, a copy of the block is stored into the destination capacity tier 122 (e.g., by a backend object copy operation) based upon the mapping between the source object identifier used by the source cluster 104 to reference the object and the new destination object identifier assigned for the object at the destination cluster 116.”).
XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data migration systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON before him or her, to modify the migration procedure of the combination of XU and MATSUDA to include use of a source to destination mapping as taught by THOMPSON. A motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tracking mechanism for the migration (e.g. to track which objects need to be copied) (¶[0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON disclose the method according to claim 9.
XU further discloses acquiring disk types corresponding to the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers; and establishing the mapping relationship between the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers based on the disk types (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”).
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON disclose the method according to claim 10.
With respect to the following limitation:
“
Since the action of “mapping at least two tiers among the first multiple tiers to a tier among the second multiple tiers” is contingent on “a first number of the first multiple tiers in the source storage device is greater than a second number of the second multiple tiers in the destination storage device” and the contingency is not required to be met, the action needs not to be performed given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See EXAMINER’S NOTE below.
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON disclose the method according to claim 11.
With respect to the following limitation:
“
Since the action of “adjusting a mapping for the third tier to a fourth tier among the second multiple tiers” is contingent on “disks of a third tier to establish a mapping relationship among the second multiple tiers are all full” and the contingency is not required to be met, the action needs not to be performed given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See EXAMINER’S NOTE below.
With respect to Claim 19, the combination of XU and MATSUDA disclose the system according to claim 14.
XU and MATSUDA may not explicitly disclose wherein determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among the second multiple tiers of the destination storage device comprises: acquiring a mapping relationship between the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers; and acquiring the second identifier corresponding to the first identifier based on the mapping relationship.
However, THOMPSON discloses wherein determining a second identifier of a second tier corresponding in performance to the first tier among the second multiple tiers of the destination storage device comprises: acquiring a mapping relationship between the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers; and acquiring the second identifier corresponding to the first identifier based on the mapping relationship (¶[0029] – “a mapping is created within the mappings between source and destination identifiers 304 based upon encountering the block for the first time (e.g., the first time encountering a block that is part of the object). The mapping is created to map a source object identifier used by the source cluster 104 to reference the object at the source object store 106 and a new destination object identifier assigned for the object at the destination cluster 116 (e.g., an identifier of a migrated object that will be stored within the destination capacity tier 122 as a migrated copy of the object from the source object store 106). In some embodiments, a copy of the block is stored into the destination capacity tier 122 (e.g., by a backend object copy operation) based upon the mapping between the source object identifier used by the source cluster 104 to reference the object and the new destination object identifier assigned for the object at the destination cluster 116.”).
XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data migration systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON before him or her, to modify the migration procedure of the combination of XU and MATSUDA to include use of a source to destination mapping as taught by THOMPSON. A motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tracking mechanism for the migration (e.g. to track which objects need to be copied) (¶[0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 20, the combination of XU, MATSUDA, and THOMPSON disclose the system according to claim 19.
XU further discloses wherein the destination storage device is further configured to: acquire disk types corresponding to the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers; and establish the mapping relationship between the first multiple tiers and the second multiple tiers based on the disk types (Col 5, Lines 39-55 – “storage units 108-109 may be configured as different storage tiers for storing different categories of data … alternatively, they may be implemented in different storage systems … and controlled by different data movement engines and segment storage engines associated therein. Files can be moved amongst storage units 108-109 or amongst different storage systems. A storage unit or storage system is referred to as a storage tier from which files are migrated.”; Col 1, Line 26-31 – “A typical data storage system may have multiple tiers of storage. Higher tier storage may include high performance disks … Lower tier storage may include generic disks …”).
EXAMINER’S NOTE:
The Office further reminds the applicant of MPEP 2111.04(II) with respect to method (or process) claims:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T LOONAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/ERIC T LOONAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights