DETAILED ACTION
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 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 objected to because of the following informality:
Change the word “if” to “when.”
The Examiner suggests this change to avoid having Claims 8 and 18 recite optional, contingent limitations per MPEP 2111.04(II).
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.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of anticipatory-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,189,501 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of the instant application are anticipated by corresponding claims in its parent patent as shown in the following table (bold text indicates anticipation):
18/077,298 (Instant Application)
12,189,501 (Parent Patent)
(Claim) 1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
1. A method for managing data storage in a data grouping, comprising:
generating a data storage configuration specifying the data grouping comprising:
a first configuration identifying a set of storage resources presently allocated to the data grouping, and
a second configuration identifying a set of storage resources previously allocated to the data grouping;
storing, in a tracking list, one or more identifiers of storage resources in the first configuration that are eligible to transition to the second configuration; and
performing one or more update operations on the first configuration using the tracking list.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing a rebalancing operation to synchronize new storage resources in the first configuration with the data grouping.
(Claim) 1. A method comprising:
generating a new storage target assignment for a placement group (PG) as a last started set, the PG comprising the last started set and a last clean set,
wherein the last started set comprises a current set of storage targets assigned for the PG, and
the last clean set comprises a set of storage targets assigned for the PG at a last time all data stores in its acting set of storage targets were online and up-to-date;
performing a process to rebalance or add new data stores in the last started set; [maps to instant Claim 5]
storing one or more of the new data stores in a supplemental clean list; and
performing one or more update operations on the last started set, based on the supplemental clean list.
Also: 5, 11, and 15.
6
6 and 16
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
11, 15, 1, and 5
16
16 and 6
17
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite:
generating a data storage configuration specifying the data grouping comprising: a first configuration identifying a set of storage resources presently allocated to the data grouping, and a second configuration identifying a set of storage resources previously allocated to the data grouping;
storing, in a tracking list, one or more identifiers of storage resources in the first configuration that are eligible to transition to the second configuration; and
performing one or more update operations on the first configuration using the tracking list.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a process.
Claims 11 and 20 are machines.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person constructing a simple graph using either pen and paper or a generic computer and display.
The ‘performing’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person modifying the simple graph using either pen and paper or a generic computer and display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘storing’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data storage / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a memory (Claims 11 and 20),
a controller (Claim 11),
an electronic device (Claim 20), and
a processor (Claim 20).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 2 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 2 and 12 recite:
determining that the first configuration is fully up-to-date, and
in response to the determination, reclassifying the first configuration as the second configuration.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 2 is a process.
Claims 12 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘reclassifying’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “reclassifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation and/or a judgement associated with data.
Claims 3 and 13 merely further describe the claimed second configuration according to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 4 and 14 recite:
determining that the first configuration is not fully up-to-date, and
in response to the determination, maintaining the first configuration, the second configuration, and the tracking list separately.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 4 is a process.
Claims 14 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘maintaining’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “maintaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation and/or a judgement associated with data, the judgement being a decision to maintain the data.
Claims 7 and 17 recite:
upon determining that all storage resources in the data grouping are operational and up-to-date, reassigning the first configuration as the second configuration and
clearing the tracking list.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 7 is a process.
Claims 17 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘reassigning’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “reassigning” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation and/or a judgement associated with data.
The ‘clearing’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “clearing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person modifying a simple list or table using either pen and paper or a generic computer and display.
Claims 8 and 18 recite:
if the storage resources in the data grouping are not fully operational and up-to-date, retaining the first configuration as distinct from the second configuration, and
maintaining the tracking list.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 8 is a process.
Claims 18 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘retaining’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “retaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation and/or a judgement associated with data.
The ‘maintaining’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “maintaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a judgement to not modify a simple list or table.
Claims 9 and 19 recite:
upon generating a subsequent configuration of storage resources for the data grouping, removing any storage resources from the tracking list in case they are no longer present in the first configuration or in case the storage resources in the data grouping are fully operational and up-to-date.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 9 is a process.
Claims 19 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘removing’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “removing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person modifying a simple list or table using either pen and paper or a generic computer and display.
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0195323 A1), hereinafter “Wang.”
With regards to Claim 1, Wang teaches:
a method for managing data storage (¶ 0003; Fig. 2; and ¶ 0074; regarding, e.g., one or more OSDs.) in a data grouping (¶ 0004; Fig. 2; and ¶ 0074; regarding, e.g., one or more PGs in a cluster storage pool.), comprising:
generating a data storage configuration specifying the data grouping comprising:
a first configuration identifying a set of storage resources presently allocated to the data grouping (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0075-0079; regarding, e.g., newly-distributed OSD lists of the PGs in the cluster storage pool.), and
a second configuration identifying a set of storage resources previously allocated to the data grouping (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0074; regarding, e.g., originally-distributed OSD lists of the PGs in the cluster storage pool.);
storing, in a tracking list (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0080-0083; regarding, e.g., a difference comparison table.), one or more identifiers of storage resources in the first configuration that are eligible to transition to the second configuration (Fig. 2; ¶ 0080-0083; regarding, e.g., difference item fields between the originally-distributed OSD lists and the newly-distributed OSD lists corresponding to each primary key, in the form of osd.x->osd.y [one or more identifiers]; and ¶ 0095. As interpreted by the Examiner, ‘eligible to transition’ is indicated as one or more of the keys eligible to change from osd.x->osd.y to osd.y->osd.x.); and
performing one or more update operations on the first configuration using the tracking list (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0084-0095; regarding, e.g., sequentially deleting replacement hard disks in the corresponding newly-distributed OSD lists, of the difference items of each PG, to obtain PGs with extra OSD changes.).
With regards to Claim 2, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
determining that the first configuration is fully up-to-date (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0089-0095.), and
in response to the determination, reclassifying the first configuration as the second configuration (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0089-0095.).
With regards to Claim 3, Wang teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
wherein the second configuration is retained until the first configuration is fully up-to-date (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0089-0095.).
With regards to Claim 4, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
determining that the first configuration is not fully up-to-date (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0089-0095.), and
in response to the determination, maintaining the first configuration, the second configuration, and the tracking list separately (Fig. 2; ¶ 0089-0095; and ¶ 0084-0085.).
With regards to Claim 5, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
performing a rebalancing operation to synchronize new storage resources in the first configuration with the data grouping (¶ 0006; regarding, e.g., data migration due to OSD list changes occurring when hard disk replacement occurs [a rebalancing operation]; Fig. 2; and ¶ 0084-0095.).
With regards to Claim 6, Wang teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
upon completion of the rebalancing operation, placing any new storage resources in the first configuration that are operational into the tracking list (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0084-0095.).
With regards to Claim 8, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
if the storage resources in the data grouping are not fully operational and up-to-date, retaining the first configuration as distinct from the second configuration (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0084-0095.), and maintaining the tracking list (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0084-0095.).
With regards to Claim 9, Wang teaches the method of Claim 8 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
upon generating a subsequent configuration of storage resources for the data grouping, removing any storage resources from the tracking list in case they are no longer present in the first configuration or in case the storage resources in the data grouping are fully operational and up-to-date (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0084-0095.).
With regards to Claim 10, Wang teaches the method of Claim 9 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
wherein the data grouping is fully operational and up-to-date upon completing a rebalancing operation (¶ 0006; ¶ 0035; Fig. 2; and ¶ 0084-0095.).
With regards to Claim 11, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 11, and Claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Wang.
Wang further teaches:
a memory (Claim 6: “…a memory, storing a computer program…”); and
a controller (Fig. 3 and Claim 6: “…a processor; and…”).
With regards to Claim 12, Wang teaches the system of Claim 11 as referenced above. The method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 12, and Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 13, Wang teaches the system of Claim 12 as referenced above. The method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 14, Wang teaches the system of Claim 11 as referenced above. The method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 15, Wang teaches the system of Claim 11 as referenced above. The method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 16, Wang teaches the system of Claim 15 as referenced above. The method of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 18, Wang teaches the system of Claim 11 as referenced above. The method of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 19, Wang teaches the system of Claim 18 as referenced above. The method of Claim 9 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 9 by the teachings of Wang.
With regards to Claim 20, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Wang.
Wang further teaches:
a memory configured to store instructions (Claim 6: “…a memory, storing a computer program…”); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 3 and Claim 6: “…a processor; and…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, and further in view of Kiselev et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,021,296 B1), hereinafter “Kiselev.”
With regards to Claim 7, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Wang further teaches:
upon determining that all storage resources in the data grouping are operational and up-to-date, reassigning the first configuration as the second configuration (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0084-0095.).
Wang does not explicitly teach:
and clearing the tracking list in accordance with the method of Claim 1.
However, Kiselev teaches:
and clearing the tracking list (Fig. 18; col. 18, lines 49-67; and col. 19, lines 1-5.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Wang with the concept of clearing OSD DIRTY data chunk flags to a clean status in a flag table as taught by Kiselev because the use of reliable tracking of data modification operations provides fast, efficient, and reliable data recovery and reduces the probability of data loss when additional failures occur (Kiselev: col. 4, lines 3-25).
With regards to Claim 17, Wang teaches the system of Claim 11 as referenced above. The method of Claim 7 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7 by the teachings of Wang in view of Kiselev.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shimmitsu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0004172 A1); teaching a data processing system including a storage apparatus having a plurality of data storages and a processing control apparatus, the processing control apparatus configured to: calculate hash information from data; and uniquely decide an arrangement destination of the data in the plurality of data storages according to the calculated hash information, and the storage apparatus is configured to: move specific data specified as a movement processing target among a plurality of pieces of stored data stored in the data storage from the arrangement destination of the specific data to a movement destination; and write information on a storage position of the specific data to the arrangement destination of the specific data after the movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114