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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference Mishra’s target count is reference to time instead of counts.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the Merrian Webster Dictionary of the term “count” is : “consider, account”
The limitation of “…a target count of the redundant copies and a current count of the redundant copies..” can be interpreted as “consider, account of the redundant copies and a current consider, account of the redundant copies”
Mishra, the cited art, teaches the backup operation dynamically (as it consider past, current and future redundant copies) runs on criteria as indicated by the storage policy/backup copy, information management rule set policy, which includes the initial starting time (refer to par 0189) – To accounts/consider all the redundant copies of current as well as future redundant copies (e.g., the storage manager keeps record of the backup copies, refer to par 0187- 0190 and 0174 – information management policies, which specific or depends on current or history criteria that determines which rules to particular data object, system component, information management operation such as frequency/generate backup time
of secondary copies that have been predicted/account, consider for target redundant copies).
The limitation indicates the current work assignment is associated with the storing of the redundant copies of the original among the cluster nodes associated with a cluster, and an updated work assignment is based on target count of redundant copies and a current count of redundant copies, which as explained above, the reference does teach the alleged missing limitation.
With respect to claims 8-20, the argument and response is similar and indicated above.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive, the rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al hereinafter Mishra (20240296099) in view of Chawla et al hereinafter Chawla (US 9,893,940).
Referring to Claim 1. Mishra discloses a method executed by a computer system that assigns work among cluster nodes storing redundant copies of an original, comprising:
receiving, by the computer system, a current version of work assignments associated
with the storing of the redundant copies of the original among the cluster nodes associated with a cluster (backup jobs, refer to par 0188, 0245, 0247, 0248, 0123); and
generating, by the computer system, a new the work assignments based on
a target count of the redundant copies and a current count of the redundant copies (generate the backup job after certain period time ellipse, refer to par 0189, 0245, 0187- 0190 and 0174).
Although Mishra disclosed the invention substantially as claimed, Mishra did not explicitly indicate the version of the work assignment.
Chawla, in analogues art, disclosing the version of the work assignment (auto scaling rules, refer to Col 2, Lines 46- 67, Col 23, Lines 1-18 and modify the instances based on the available resources /current vs needs/target).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring to Claim 2. Mishra with Chawla disclosed the method of claim 1, Chawla further discloses comprising adding a cluster node to the cluster nodes based on the target count of the redundant copies (scale up components/devices base on the resources and updated policies refer to Col 23, Lines 1-24, Col 1, Lines 15-25, Col 6, Lines 40-67, Col 9, lines 35-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring to Claim 3. Mishra with Chawla disclosed the method of claim 1, Chawla further discloses comprising adding a cluster node to the cluster nodes based on the current count of the redundant copies (to add or terminate the component/device is to consider the existing count of the resources, refer to Col 23, Lines 1-24, Col 7, Lines 1-10, Col 13, Lines 21-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring to Claim 4. Mishra with Chawla disclosed the method of claim 1, Chawla further discloses adding a cluster node to the cluster nodes based on the target count of the redundant copies and the current count of the redundant copies (add the nodes and considered the resources available and policies, and use topology aware configuration, refer to Col 12, Lines 10-15, Lines 54-63, Col 13, Lines 21-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring to Claim 5. Mishra with Chawla disclosed the method of claim 1, Chawla further discloses removing a cluster node from the cluster nodes based on the target count of the redundant (remove the nodes and considered the resources available and policies, and use topology aware configuration, refer to Col 12, Lines 10-15, Lines 54-63, Col 13, Lines 21-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring to Claim 6. Mishra with Chawla disclosed the method of claim 1, Chawla further discloses removing a cluster node from the cluster nodes based on the current count of the redundant copies (remove the nodes and considered the resources available/current and policies/target, and use topology aware configuration, refer to Col 12, Lines 10-15, Lines 54-63, Col 13, Lines 21-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring to Claim 7. Mishra with Chawla disclosed the method of claim 1, Chawla further discloses removing a cluster node from the cluster nodes based on the target count of the redundant copies and the current count of the redundant copies (remove the nodes and considered the resources available and policies, and use topology aware configuration, refer to Col 12, Lines 10-15, Lines 54-63, Col 13, Lines 21-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mishra with Chawla because Chawla’s teaching would allow the system of Mishra to provide topology aware network device configuration and improve network communication bottleneck and delay conditions.
Referring claims 8-20, are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights