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 21 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12175076. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant application has a corresponding limitation in the conflicting US Patent.
Instant Application 18/999538
US Patent No. 12175076
21. A method comprising: determining one or more data overwrite patterns for data stored within a storage system; and
1. A method comprising: identifying one or more data release patterns of a storage system…
based on the determined one or more data overwrite patterns, presenting, on a user interface, an estimated impact on a capacity utilization of the storage system of implementation of a snapshot policy for the data.
…identifying a snapshot policy; and generating, based on the one or more data release patterns and the snapshot policy, an estimate of an impact of the snapshot policy on a capacity of the storage system.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising: indicating, in a graphical user interface, the estimate of the impact of the snapshot policy.
The first difference is that the instant application uses the term “data overwrite pattern” while the US Patent uses the term “data release pattern”. However, looking at paragraph [0077] of the originally filed specification (as well as column 12, lines 25 – 61), both terms are used interchangeably and use the same reference number. Therefore these terms are equivalent. The next differences is that Claim 21 of the instant application includes a limitation about the result being presented on a user interface. However, Claim 8 of the US Patent, which depends from Claim 1 of the same US Patent, discloses indicating the estimate of the impact in a graphical user interface.
Claims 22 – 40 of the instant application are similarly obvious in view of 2 – 20 of the conflicting US Patent.
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 21, 24, 25, 28, 31, and 34 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martynov US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0410418 (herein after referred to as Martynov).
Regarding claim 21, Martynov describes a method comprising: determining one or more data overwrite patterns for data stored within a storage system (In a specific embodiment, a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer… (page 13, paragraph [0119]). Retention policies would be related to data being overwritten since that when data is no longer required to be retained it may be overwritten); and based on the determined one or more data overwrite patterns, presenting, on a user interface (In a specific embodiment, the analyzer receives as user input from the UI [User Interface] a selection of storages, applications or backup applications to assess; start and end times defining the past activity period; logical conditions (e.g., backup schedule names, pool name, or other logical condition); a period to predict; or combinations of these. In a specific embodiment, the output includes the backup/restore growth for the selected period (page 13, paragraph [0118])), an estimated impact on a capacity utilization of the storage system of implementation of a snapshot policy for the data (In a specific embodiment, a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer. Predicting the amount of storage capacity that may be needed at a future time can help with the enterprise customer’s financial planning (page 13, paragraph [0119]). …calculating a predicted amount of backup data for the future activity period based on the retention duration and the rate of data growth (page 13, paragraph [0120])).
Regarding claim 24, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above), wherein the snapshot policy specifies at least a snapshot frequency and a snapshot retention period (Backup policies 130 of the data protection manager allow a customer administrative user to specify backup schedules [the schedule would indicate the frequency], identify the source to be backed up (e.g., client volume, folder, file or application), define retention periods… (page 2, paragraph [0022])).
Regarding claim 25, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above), wherein the estimated impact is projected to a future time (…a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer. Predicting the amount of storage capacity that may be needed at a future time can help with the enterprise customer’s financial planning (page 13, paragraph [0119])).
Regarding claim 28, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above) further comprising: indicating, in a graphical user interface, the estimated impact of the snapshot policy (In a specific embodiment, the analyzer receives as user input from the UI [User Interface] a selection of storages, applications or backup applications to assess; start and end times defining the past activity period; logical conditions (e.g., backup schedule names, pool name, or other logical condition); a period to predict; or combinations of these. In a specific embodiment, the output includes the backup/restore growth for the selected period (page 13, paragraph [0118]). The output may include a structure of cloud backup configurations including, for example, transitions, retention policies, and other configuration to display in GUI [Graphical User Interface] (page 12, paragraph [0112]). The analyzer receives as input information from the user interface (e.g., graphical user interface), activity collector, and a cloud storage service description block and prepares the data to display in reports (page 11, paragraph [0103])).
Regarding claim 31, Martynov describes an apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to (…components of an information processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented at least in part in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory and executed by a processor of a processing device… (page 16, paragraph [0161])): determine one or more data overwrite patterns for data stored within a storage system (In a specific embodiment, a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer… (page 13, paragraph [0119]). Retention policies would be related to data being overwritten since that when data is no longer required to be retained it may be overwritten); and based on the determined one or more data overwrite patterns, present, on a user interface (In a specific embodiment, the analyzer receives as user input from the UI [User Interface] a selection of storages, applications or backup applications to assess; start and end times defining the past activity period; logical conditions (e.g., backup schedule names, pool name, or other logical condition); a period to predict; or combinations of these. In a specific embodiment, the output includes the backup/restore growth for the selected period (page 13, paragraph [0118])), an estimated impact on a capacity utilization of the storage system of implementation of a snapshot policy for the data (In a specific embodiment, a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer. Predicting the amount of storage capacity that may be needed at a future time can help with the enterprise customer’s financial planning (page 13, paragraph [0119]). …calculating a predicted amount of backup data for the future activity period based on the retention duration and the rate of data growth (page 13, paragraph [0120])).
Regarding claim 34, Martynov describes the apparatus of claim 31 (see above), wherein the snapshot policy specifies at least a snapshot frequency and a snapshot retention period (Backup policies 130 of the data protection manager allow a customer administrative user to specify backup schedules [the schedule would indicate the frequency], identify the source to be backed up (e.g., client volume, folder, file or application), define retention periods… (page 2, paragraph [0022])).
Regarding claim 35, Martynov describes the apparatus of claim 31 (see above) wherein the processing device is further configured to: indicate, in a graphical user interface, the estimated impact of the snapshot policy (In a specific embodiment, the analyzer receives as user input from the UI [User Interface] a selection of storages, applications or backup applications to assess; start and end times defining the past activity period; logical conditions (e.g., backup schedule names, pool name, or other logical condition); a period to predict; or combinations of these. In a specific embodiment, the output includes the backup/restore growth for the selected period (page 13, paragraph [0118]). The output may include a structure of cloud backup configurations including, for example, transitions, retention policies, and other configuration to display in GUI [Graphical User Interface] (page 12, paragraph [0112]). The analyzer receives as input information from the user interface (e.g., graphical user interface), activity collector, and a cloud storage service description block and prepares the data to display in reports (page 11, paragraph [0103])).
Regarding claim 36, Martynov describes a non-transitory computer program product for projecting capacity utilization for snapshots, the computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising computer program instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to carry out the steps of (…components of an information processing system as disclosed herein can be implemented at least in part in the form of one or more software programs stored in memory and executed by a processor of a processing device… (page 16, paragraph [0161])): determining one or more data overwrite patterns for data stored within a storage system (In a specific embodiment, a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer… (page 13, paragraph [0119]). Retention policies would be related to data being overwritten since that when data is no longer required to be retained it may be overwritten); and based on the determined one or more data overwrite patterns, presenting, on a user interface (In a specific embodiment, the analyzer receives as user input from the UI [User Interface] a selection of storages, applications or backup applications to assess; start and end times defining the past activity period; logical conditions (e.g., backup schedule names, pool name, or other logical condition); a period to predict; or combinations of these. In a specific embodiment, the output includes the backup/restore growth for the selected period (page 13, paragraph [0118])), an estimated impact on a capacity utilization of the storage system of implementation of a snapshot policy for the data (In a specific embodiment, a function to predict future growth including storage utilization for backups is based on rates of data growth and retention policies of the enterprise customer. Predicting the amount of storage capacity that may be needed at a future time can help with the enterprise customer’s financial planning (page 13, paragraph [0119]). …calculating a predicted amount of backup data for the future activity period based on the retention duration and the rate of data growth (page 13, paragraph [0120])).
Regarding claim 37, Martynov describes the computer program product of claim 36 (see above) further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the computer to carry out the steps of: indicating, in a graphical user interface, the estimated impact of the snapshot policy (In a specific embodiment, the analyzer receives as user input from the UI [User Interface] a selection of storages, applications or backup applications to assess; start and end times defining the past activity period; logical conditions (e.g., backup schedule names, pool name, or other logical condition); a period to predict; or combinations of these. In a specific embodiment, the output includes the backup/restore growth for the selected period (page 13, paragraph [0118]). The output may include a structure of cloud backup configurations including, for example, transitions, retention policies, and other configuration to display in GUI [Graphical User Interface] (page 12, paragraph [0112]). The analyzer receives as input information from the user interface (e.g., graphical user interface), activity collector, and a cloud storage service description block and prepares the data to display in reports (page 11, paragraph [0103])).
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.
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 23, 33, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martynov US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0410418 (herein after referred to as Martynov) in view of Satoyama et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0401348 (herein after referred to as Satoyama).
Regarding claim 23, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above). While Martynov discloses rates of data growth (page 13, paragraph [0119]), it does not specifically describe wherein the one or more data overwrite patterns relate to a rate that stored data is overwritten in the storage system.
Satoyama describes a storage system capable of predicting the required pool free capacity. Specifically, it is disclosed that the frequency of first overwriting on the data and the frequency of second and subsequent overwriting are monitored and the required capacity is predicted. The storage controller 101 executes the pool capacity recovery program 413 to monitor write request numbers per unit time and overwrite request numbers thereof, thereby predicting a first write frequency, a second write frequency, and third and subsequent write frequencies (page 12, paragraph [0209]). Satoyama clearly suggests that frequency of overwriting may be used as part of a capacity prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Satoyama teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of monitoring the frequency of overwriting as taught by Satoyama in the Martynov system for effectively predicting required pool capacity. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as pool capacity prediction. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Martynov describes the apparatus of claim 31 (see above). While Martynov discloses rates of data growth (page 13, paragraph [0119]), it does not specifically describe wherein the one or more data overwrite patterns relate to a rate that stored data is overwritten in the storage system.
Satoyama describes a storage system capable of predicting the required pool free capacity. Specifically, it is disclosed that the frequency of first overwriting on the data and the frequency of second and subsequent overwriting are monitored and the required capacity is predicted. The storage controller 101 executes the pool capacity recovery program 413 to monitor write request numbers per unit time and overwrite request numbers thereof, thereby predicting a first write frequency, a second write frequency, and third and subsequent write frequencies (page 12, paragraph [0209]). Satoyama clearly suggests that frequency of overwriting may be used as part of a capacity prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Satoyama teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of monitoring the frequency of overwriting as taught by Satoyama in the Martynov system for effectively predicting required pool capacity. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as pool capacity prediction. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 38, Martynov describes the computer program product of claim 36 (see above). While Martynov discloses rates of data growth (page 13, paragraph [0119]), it does not specifically describe wherein the one or more data overwrite patterns relate to a rate that stored data is overwritten in the storage system.
Satoyama describes a storage system capable of predicting the required pool free capacity. Specifically, it is disclosed that the frequency of first overwriting on the data and the frequency of second and subsequent overwriting are monitored and the required capacity is predicted. The storage controller 101 executes the pool capacity recovery program 413 to monitor write request numbers per unit time and overwrite request numbers thereof, thereby predicting a first write frequency, a second write frequency, and third and subsequent write frequencies (page 12, paragraph [0209]). Satoyama clearly suggests that frequency of overwriting may be used as part of a capacity prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Satoyama teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of monitoring the frequency of overwriting as taught by Satoyama in the Martynov system for effectively predicting required pool capacity. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as pool capacity prediction. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Claims 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martynov in view of Kochunni et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0180664 (herein after referred to as Kochunni).
Regarding claim 26, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above). Martynov does not explicitly describe wherein the impact is estimated without implementation of the snapshot policy.
Kochunni discloses systems and methods for performance monitoring of data storage operations. Specifically, it describes that the systems and methods described with respect to Figs. 1A-1E can be used for protecting data storage data. For instance, the system of Fig. 1C applies backup policies and backs up data from the client computing device 102 in the data storage system 100. In other embodiments, data storage systems monitor the performance of data storage operations on a granular level and compile the information for presenting to a user. Systems and methods are described herein monitor the performance of storage operations. Further examples of systems and methods to 1) measure time of execution for individual granular stages of the storage operation and in response to the monitoring results, automatically adjust parameters to optimize performance; and 2) perform a performance test by simulating the data storage operation, but not actually write the data to the secondary storage medium are described below with respect to Figs. 2-4 (page 18, paragraph [0272]). A simulation is by definition not actual implementation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Kochunni teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of simulating backup operations as taught by Kochunni in the Martynov system for effectively monitoring and optimizing backup operations in a storage system. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, storage system management. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above). Martynov does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimated impact of the snapshot policy is further based on a particular workload.
Kochunni discloses systems and methods for performance monitoring of data storage operations. Specifically, it describes that the systems and methods described with respect to Figs. 1A-1E can be used for protecting data storage data. For instance, the system of Fig. 1C applies backup policies and backs up data from the client computing device 102 in the data storage system 100. In other embodiments, data storage systems monitor the performance of data storage operations on a granular level and compile the information for presenting to a user. Systems and methods are described herein monitor the performance of storage operations. Further examples of systems and methods to 1) measure time of execution for individual granular stages of the storage operation and in response to the monitoring results, automatically adjust parameters to optimize performance; and 2) perform a performance test by simulating the data storage operation, but not actually write the data to the secondary storage medium are described below with respect to Figs. 2-4 (page 18, paragraph [0272]). At block 1004, the process 1000 receives a selected data set for use in the simulated data storage operation. In an embodiment, the user e.g., through a GUI or other interface viewable at the client computing device 285 (or other appropriate computing device) selects a data set to use in the simulated data storage operation (page 19, paragraph [0279]). A dataset selected for use in a simulation would reasonably be considered a particular workload.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Kochunni teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of simulating backup operations as taught by Kochunni in the Martynov system for effectively monitoring and optimizing backup operations in a storage system. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, storage system management. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above). Martynov does not specifically disclose further comprising: simulating variations in snapshot policy parameters.
Kochunni discloses systems and methods for performance monitoring of data storage operations. Specifically, it describes that the systems and methods described with respect to Figs. 1A-1E can be used for protecting data storage data. For instance, the system of Fig. 1C applies backup policies and backs up data from the client computing device 102 in the data storage system 100. In other embodiments, data storage systems monitor the performance of data storage operations on a granular level and compile the information for presenting to a user. Systems and methods are described herein monitor the performance of storage operations. Further examples of systems and methods to 1) measure time of execution for individual granular stages of the storage operation and in response to the monitoring results, automatically adjust parameters to optimize performance; and 2) perform a performance test by simulating the data storage operation, but not actually write the data to the secondary storage medium are described below with respect to Figs. 2-4 (page 18, paragraph [0272]). At block 1004, the process 1000 receives a selected data set for use in the simulated data storage operation. In an embodiment, the user e.g., through a GUI or other interface viewable at the client computing device 285 (or other appropriate computing device) selects a data set to use in the simulated data storage operation (page 19, paragraph [0279]). For example, the process 1000 displays the execution times on a display associated with the client computing device 285 via the GUI. Or the process 1000 may write the monitored storage operation metrics to a results file for later user-access (page 20, paragraph [0289]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Kochunni teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of simulating backup operations as taught by Kochunni in the Martynov system for effectively monitoring and optimizing backup operations in a storage system. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, storage system management. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Martynov describes the method of claim 21 (see above). Martynov does not specifically disclose further comprising: identifying, based on at least one user objective, an optimal snapshot policy.
Kochunni discloses systems and methods for performance monitoring of data storage operations. Specifically, it describes that the systems and methods described with respect to Figs. 1A-1E can be used for protecting data storage data. For instance, the system of Fig. 1C applies backup policies and backs up data from the client computing device 102 in the data storage system 100. In other embodiments, data storage systems monitor the performance of data storage operations on a granular level and compile the information for presenting to a user. Systems and methods are described herein monitor the performance of storage operations. Further examples of systems and methods to 1) measure time of execution for individual granular stages of the storage operation and in response to the monitoring results, automatically adjust parameters to optimize performance; and 2) perform a performance test by simulating the data storage operation, but not actually write the data to the secondary storage medium are described below with respect to Figs. 2-4 (page 18, paragraph [0272]). At block 1004, the process 1000 receives a selected data set for use in the simulated data storage operation. In an embodiment, the user e.g., through a GUI or other interface viewable at the client computing device 285 (or other appropriate computing device) selects a data set to use in the simulated data storage operation (page 19, paragraph [0279]). For example, the process 1000 displays the execution times on a display associated with the client computing device 285 via the GUI. Or the process 1000 may write the monitored storage operation metrics to a results file for later user-access (page 20, paragraph [0289]). The process 2000 further compares execution times or other metrics associated with performance of the storage operation at each iteration, using the different settings. In some embodiments, the process 2000 also automatically identifies and/or selects particular settings, e.g., settings that optimize the simulated storage operation performance (page 20, paragraph [0292]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Kochunni teachings in the Martynov system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of simulating backup operations as taught by Kochunni in the Martynov system for effectively monitoring and optimizing backup operations in a storage system. In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, storage system management. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 32, 39, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as responding to the double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 22 and 32 each disclose that the one or more data overwrite patterns are identified from one or more storage system logs including at least a garbage collection log. The prior art of record does not anticipate this limitation in view of the other claimed limitations. Claims 39 and 40 each disclose that wherein the one or more data overwrite patterns are identified from garbage collection information associated with the storage system. The prior art of record does not anticipate this limitation in view of the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH A VERDERAMO III whose telephone number is (571)270-1174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/RALPH A VERDERAMO III/Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
rv
March 31, 2026