DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the reference patent..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 14 recites the limitation "the request." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rebaja et al. (US Patent No. 11,281,492), hereinafter referred to as REBEJA.
Consider Claim 1,
REBEJA teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a processing device, a first block storage volume of one or more block storage volumes to be reassigned to a second compute node in a cluster (REBEJA, e.g., Fig 1, shows migration of storage volume from node 112A to 112M; Fig 2(206-214);Col 11:3-36, describes reassigning a storage volume to a second node; Col 14:10-17, node provides compute services (i.e., a compute node).); and
deploying the cluster with the first block storage volume mounted on the second compute node in the cluster (REBEJA, e.g., Col 12:51-61, cause container to start executing on the node. In other words, the cluster is now deployed with the volume mounted on the target node.).
Consider Claim 8,
REBEJA teaches a system comprising:
a memory (REBEJA, e.g., Fig 4(486); Col 15:17-40, memory.); and
a processing device operatively coupled to the memory (REBEJA, e.g., Fig 4(476), processor.), the processing device to:
determine a first block storage volume of one or more block storage volumes to be reassigned to a second compute node in a cluster (REBEJA, e.g., Fig 1, shows migration of storage volume from node 112A to 112M; Fig 2(206-214);Col 11:3-36, describes reassigning a storage volume to a second node; Col 14:10-17, node provides compute services (i.e., a compute node).); and
deploy the cluster with the first block storage volume mounted on the second compute node in the cluster (REBEJA, e.g., Col 12:51-61, cause container to start executing on the node. In other words, the cluster is now deployed with the volume mounted on the target node.).
Consider Claim 15,
REBEJA teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having instructions stored thereon which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
determine, by the processing device, a first block storage volume of one or more block storage volumes to be reassigned to a second compute node in a cluster (REBEJA, e.g., Fig 1, shows migration of storage volume from node 112A to 112M; Fig 2(206-214);Col 11:3-36, describes reassigning a storage volume to a second node; Col 14:10-17, node provides compute services (i.e., a compute node).); and
deploy the cluster with the first block storage volume mounted on the second compute node in the cluster (REBEJA, e.g., Col 12:51-61, cause container to start executing on the node. In other words, the cluster is now deployed with the volume mounted on the target node.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REBAJA in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub No. 2024/0111414), hereinafter referred to as CHEN, and further in view of Ferris et al. (US Patent No. 8,924,539), hereinafter referred to as FERRIS.
Consider Claim 2,
REBEJA teaches the method of claim 1, above, but fails to additionally teach determining, based on configuration information, that a first compute node cannot utilize a full amount of storage volume bandwidth provided by the one or more block storage volumes assigned to it based on a storage subscription plan before determining the first block storage volume to be reassigned to the second compute node in the cluster. CHEN is directed to systems and methods for managing storage and compute nodes and is considered analogous prior art. CHEN does describe determining, based on configuration information, that a first compute node cannot utilize a full amount of storage volume bandwidth provided by the one or more block storage volumes assigned to it based on a target (CHEN, e.g., ¶0054, determine if available capacity to service compute node based on utilization data; ¶0038, utilization data includes bandwidth utilization.) before determining the first block storage volume to be reassigned to the second compute node in the cluster (CHEN, e.g., ¶0055, determine if there is enough capacity; ¶0056, initiate a migration after the determination.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA with at least the cited teachings of CHEN because it prevents the unnecessary movement of data when resources are adequate. The combined system of REBEJA and CHEN fail to describe wherein the target is based on a storage subscription plan. FERRIS describes systems and methods for managing a set of compute and storage nodes and is considered analogous prior art. FERRIS does teach assigning and reassigning resources based on a storage subscription plan (see, e.g., Col 8:36-45, resource targets include memory and storage amounts/types.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA and CHEN, as combined, with at least the cited teachings of FERRIS because it allows a user to reserve system resources for specific uses and time periods (FERRIS, e.g., Col 1:28-36).
Consider Claim 7,
The method of REBEJA, CHEN, and FERRIS, as combined teaches the method of claim 2, above and further teaches directing the request to the second compute node based on a mapping of each of the one or more block storage volumes to a compute node of the cluster (CHEN, e.g., Fig 1(116A); ¶0035, describes mapping data for accessing a volume.). However, there is no explicit disclosure regarding wherein the first compute node includes a driver to redirect a request to a second compute node. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that forwarding requests is notoriously well-known in the storage arts and a common human experience when something is delivered to the incorrect location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA, CHEN, and FERRIS, to forward requests from the first compute node to the second compute node because forwarding is notoriously well-known and reduces latency by eliminating the need to reissue a request to the correct location.
Consider Claim 9,
REBEJA teaches the system of claim 8, above, but fails to additionally teach wherein the processing device is further to: determine, based on configuration information, that a first compute node cannot utilize a full amount of storage volume bandwidth provided by the one or more block storage volumes assigned to it based on a storage subscription plan before determining the first block storage volume to be reassigned to the second compute node in the cluster. CHEN is directed to systems and methods for managing storage and compute nodes and is considered analogous prior art. CHEN does describe determining, based on configuration information, that a first compute node cannot utilize a full amount of storage volume bandwidth provided by the one or more block storage volumes assigned to it based on a target (CHEN, e.g., ¶0054, determine if available capacity to service compute node based on utilization data; ¶0038, utilization data includes bandwidth utilization.) before determining the first block storage volume to be reassigned to the second compute node in the cluster (CHEN, e.g., ¶0055, determine if there is enough capacity; ¶0056, initiate a migration after the determination.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA with at least the cited teachings of CHEN because it prevents the unnecessary movement of data when resources are adequate. The combined system of REBEJA and CHEN fail to describe wherein the target is based on a storage subscription plan. FERRIS describes systems and methods for managing a set of compute and storage nodes and is considered analogous prior art. FERRIS does teach assigning and reassigning resources based on a storage subscription plan (see, e.g., Col 8:36-45, resource targets include memory and storage amounts/types.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA and CHEN, as combined, with at least the cited teachings of FERRIS because it allows a user to reserve system resources for specific uses and time periods (FERRIS, e.g., Col 1:28-36).
Consider Claim 14,
The system of REBEJA, CHEN, and FERRIS, as combined teaches the system of claim 9, above and further teaches directing the request to the second compute node based on a mapping of each of the one or more block storage volumes to a compute node of the cluster (CHEN, e.g., Fig 1(116A); ¶0035, describes mapping data for accessing a volume.). However, there is no explicit disclosure regarding wherein the first compute node includes a driver to redirect a request to a second compute node. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that forwarding requests is notoriously well-known in the storage arts and a common human experience when something is delivered to the incorrect location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA, CHEN, and FERRIS, to forward requests from the first compute node to the second compute node because forwarding is notoriously well-known and reduces latency by eliminating the need to reissue a request to the correct location.
Consider Claim 16,
REBEJA teaches the media of claim 15, above, but fails to additionally teach wherein the processing device is further to: determine, based on configuration information, that a first compute node cannot utilize a full amount of storage volume bandwidth provided by the one or more block storage volumes assigned to it based on a storage subscription plan before determining the first block storage volume to be reassigned to the second compute node in the cluster. CHEN is directed to systems and methods for managing storage and compute nodes and is considered analogous prior art. CHEN does describe determining, based on configuration information, that a first compute node cannot utilize a full amount of storage volume bandwidth provided by the one or more block storage volumes assigned to it based on a target (CHEN, e.g., ¶0054, determine if available capacity to service compute node based on utilization data; ¶0038, utilization data includes bandwidth utilization.) before determining the first block storage volume to be reassigned to the second compute node in the cluster (CHEN, e.g., ¶0055, determine if there is enough capacity; ¶0056, initiate a migration after the determination.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA with at least the cited teachings of CHEN because it prevents the unnecessary movement of data when resources are adequate. The combined system of REBEJA and CHEN fail to describe wherein the target is based on a storage subscription plan. FERRIS describes systems and methods for managing a set of compute and storage nodes and is considered analogous prior art. FERRIS does teach assigning and reassigning resources based on a storage subscription plan (see, e.g., Col 8:36-45, resource targets include memory and storage amounts/types.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA and CHEN, as combined, with at least the cited teachings of FERRIS because it allows a user to reserve system resources for specific uses and time periods (FERRIS, e.g., Col 1:28-36).
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REBEJA in view of FERRIS.
Consider Claim 3,
REBEJA teaches the method of claim 1, above, but fails to additionally describe receiving information indicating an available bandwidth of each of a set of compute nodes in the cluster; and receiving user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes. FERRIS describes systems and methods for managing a set of compute and storage nodes and is considered analogous prior art. FERRIS does teach receiving information indicating an available bandwidth of each of a set of compute nodes in the cluster (FERRIS, e.g., Col 5:19-23, receive available bandwidth.); and receiving user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 8:46-65, user supplies config parameters; Col 9:12-17, user can supply different criteria for different resources.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA with at least the cited teachings of FERRIS because it allows the user to tailor their instantiation request based on their needs and available resources.
Consider Claim 4,
The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, further teaches wherein the first block storage volume is determined based on the user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 6:59-7:9, user can change requirements and system will adapt allocated resources based on user input.).
Consider Claim 5,
The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, further teaches determining the second compute node based on the available bandwidth of each of the set of compute nodes in the cluster (FERRIS, e.g., Col 9:18-41, identify individual resources that correspond to selection criteria.).
Consider Claim 6,
The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, describes the method of Claim 3, above, and further teaches wherein the user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes comprises: a turn-around time of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 9:12-17, different resources have different criteria; Col 8:36-45, performance related criteria affect the turn-around time of requests.). The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, additionally describes tracking patterns, attributes, and characteristics of a user’s resource consumption (FERRIS, e.g., Col 8:16-20), but fails to expressly describe that the user input includes a priority of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that identifying the priority of a request is notoriously well-known and common in the storage arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, such that user input includes a priority of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes because it allows the user to tailor the assignment of different priorities of requests to different targets based on their performance characteristics.
Consider Claim 10,
REBEJA teaches the system of claim 8, above, but fails to additionally describe wherein the processing device is further to: receive information indicating an available bandwidth of each of a set of compute nodes in the cluster; and receive user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes. FERRIS describes systems and methods for managing a set of compute and storage nodes and is considered analogous prior art. FERRIS does teach receiving information indicating an available bandwidth of each of a set of compute nodes in the cluster (FERRIS, e.g., Col 5:19-23, receive available bandwidth.); and receiving user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 8:46-65, user supplies config parameters; Col 9:12-17, user can supply different criteria for different resources.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA with at least the cited teachings of FERRIS because it allows the user to tailor their instantiation request based on their needs and available resources.
Consider Claim 11,
The system of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, further teaches wherein the processing device determines the first block storage volume based on the user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 6:59-7:9, user can change requirements and system will adapt allocated resources based on user input.).
Consider Claim 12,
The system of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, further teaches wherein the processing device is further to: determine the second compute node based on the available bandwidth of each of the set of compute nodes in the cluster (FERRIS, e.g., Col 9:18-41, identify individual resources that correspond to selection criteria.).
Consider Claim 13,
The system of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, describes the system of Claim 10, above, and further teaches wherein the user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes comprises: a turn-around time of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 9:12-17, different resources have different criteria; Col 8:36-45, performance related criteria affect the turn-around time of requests.). The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, additionally describes tracking patterns, attributes, and characteristics of a user’s resource consumption (FERRIS, e.g., Col 8:16-20), but fails to expressly describe that the user input includes a priority of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that identifying the priority of a request is notoriously well-known and common in the storage arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, such that user input includes a priority of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes because it allows the user to tailor the assignment of different priorities of requests to different targets based on their performance characteristics.
Consider Claim 17,
REBEJA teaches the media of claim 15, above, but fails to additionally describe wherein the processing device is further to: receive information indicating an available bandwidth of each of a set of compute nodes in the cluster; and receive user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes. FERRIS describes systems and methods for managing a set of compute and storage nodes and is considered analogous prior art. FERRIS does teach receiving information indicating an available bandwidth of each of a set of compute nodes in the cluster (FERRIS, e.g., Col 5:19-23, receive available bandwidth.); and receiving user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 8:46-65, user supplies config parameters; Col 9:12-17, user can supply different criteria for different resources.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA with at least the cited teachings of FERRIS because it allows the user to tailor their instantiation request based on their needs and available resources.
Consider Claim 18,
The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, further teaches wherein the processing device determines the first block storage volume based on the user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 6:59-7:9, user can change requirements and system will adapt allocated resources based on user input.).
Consider Claim 19,
The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, further teaches wherein the processing device is further to: determine the second compute node based on the available bandwidth of each of the set of compute nodes in the cluster (FERRIS, e.g., Col 9:18-41, identify individual resources that correspond to selection criteria.).
Consider Claim 20,
The media of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, describes the media of Claim 15, above, and further teaches wherein the user input regarding requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes comprises: a turn-around time of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes (FERRIS, e.g., Col 9:12-17, different resources have different criteria; Col 8:36-45, performance related criteria affect the turn-around time of requests.). The method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, additionally describes tracking patterns, attributes, and characteristics of a user’s resource consumption (FERRIS, e.g., Col 8:16-20), but fails to expressly describe that the user input includes a priority of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that identifying the priority of a request is notoriously well-known and common in the storage arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of REBEJA and FERRIS, as combined, such that user input includes a priority of requests serviced by each of the one or more block storage volumes because it allows the user to tailor the assignment of different priorities of requests to different targets based on their performance characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gary W Cygiel whose telephone number is (571)270-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 11am-3pm PST.
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 P 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.
/Gary W. Cygiel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137