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
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 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 21-23, 25, 28-32, 34 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villait et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0023627).
Regarding independent claims 21, 30 and 39, Villait discloses a method comprising:
requesting, by a first storage system, mediation from a mediation service (Fig.3: [Failover to backup node] 360) that resolves which storage system continues to service a dataset after a triggering event (Fig.3: [detect failure event] 360) (Fig.3 and [0028]-[0033]: If a failover occurs, the backup node
will thus be ready to use the primary's current configuration. A “mediation service” can include any mechanism that resolves which system continues servicing after a triggering event, and thus the failover decision block shown in Fig.3, block 360 & 370, constitutes such mediation), wherein the first storage system and a second storage system are identified as having a membership in a set of storage systems that synchronously replicate the dataset (Fig.3 and [0028]-[0030]: Once the configuration on the backup node is synchronized, any changes in the current configuration on the primary node is checkpointed to the backup node and incorporated into the backup node's configuration. For example, when a user types a command, for example, in a command line interface to the computing system, causing a need to change the configuration of the system, the CMM 216 sends the command first to the backup node, in particular, to CMM 226 in backup node 220. CMM 226 forwards the command to any appropriate process 225 on the backup node, receives an acknowledgement the command was executed on the process, and sends a response indicating the configuration on the backup node has been updated. Then the command is executed on the primary node and Returning back to 330 in FIG. 3, once configuration is initially synchronized, state information is then transferred from the primary node to the backup node at 340. The initial transfer of state information following configuration synchronization is referred to herein as an initial bulk checkpoint process. The primary node and the backup node that perform the synchronization of configuration and state information correspond to a set of storage systems that synchronously replicate the dataset. Further, the primary node and the backup node that participate in such synchronization are identified as having a membership in the set); and
based on a positive mediation result from the mediation service (Fig.3 and [0030]-[0034]: “positive mediation result” corresponds to determination resolving which storage system continues servicing after the triggering event. The determination in Villait that the backup node will take over servicing at Fig.3, block 370, following detection of the failure event at Fig.3, block 360, corresponds to such a positive mediation result), removing, by the first storage system, the second storage system from the membership of the set of storage systems (Fig.3 and [0030]-[0034]: “removing, … from the membership of the set of storage systems” does not require an explicit modification of a data structure but reasonably includes excluding a storage system from participating in servicing the dataset as part of the set. Thus, after the failure event is detected, the system performs a failover such that the backup node takes over servicing the dataset. Following failover, servicing responsibility transitions to the backup node, and the previously servicing node no longer performs servicing functions).
Regarding claims 22 and 31, Villait teaches receiving, from the mediation service, a positive mediation result (Fig.3 and [0030]-[0034]: “positive mediation result” corresponds to determination resolving which storage system continues servicing after the triggering event. The determination in Villait that the backup node will take over servicing at Fig.3, block 370, following detection of the failure event at Fig.3, block 360, corresponds to such a positive mediation result).
Regarding claims 23 and 32, Villait teaches responsive to receiving the positive mediation result, continuing to process data storage requests directed to the dataset (Fig.3 and [0030]-[0034]: after the failure event is detected, the system performs a failover such that the backup node takes over servicing the dataset. Following failover, servicing responsibility transitions to the backup node, and the previously servicing node no longer performs servicing functions).
Regarding claims 25 and 34, Villait teaches maintaining a partition identifier value (Fig.3 and [0028]-[0033]: a “partition identifier value” reasonably includes any identifier or information used to maintain system state or configuration associated with a dataset. The maintained configuration and state information in Villait inherently includes identifiers associated with portions of data or system state).
Regarding claims 28 and 37, Villait teaches wherein the mediation service is implemented in fault domain that is different from a fault domain of either the first storage system or the second storage system (Fig.3 and [0028]-[0033]: “a fault domain” encompasses any system or node that can fail independently. The presence of separate nodes (primary, backu) implies different fault domains. The mechanism that determines failover and system state operates across these nodes and is not limited to a single node).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, Villait teaches wherein the mediation service is one of a plurality of mediation services (Fig.3 and [0028]-[0033]: The multiple nodes (primary, backup, standby) and processes that coordinate failover and state management correspond to a plurality of such mechanisms).
Regarding claim 40, Villait teaches the step of receiving, from the mediation service, a positive mediation result (Fig.3 and [0030]-[0034]: “positive mediation result” corresponds to determination resolving which storage system continues servicing after the triggering event. The determination in Villait that the backup node will take over servicing at Fig.3, block 370, following detection of the failure event at Fig.3, block 360, corresponds to such a positive mediation result) and, responsive to receiving the positive mediation result, continuing to process data storage requests directed to the dataset (Fig.3 and [0030]-[0034]: after the failure event is detected, the system performs a failover such that the backup node takes over servicing the dataset. Following failover, servicing responsibility transitions to the backup node, and the previously servicing node no longer performs servicing functions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 26, 27, 33, 35 and 36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 24 and 33 identify the distinct features “wherein detaching the second storage system from a plurality of storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset includes requesting, by the first storage system, a request to set a membership list that includes the first storage system and the second storage system", which are not taught or suggested by the prior art of records.
Claims 26 and 35 identify the distinct features “wherein a request to resolve which storage system continues to service a dataset includes an old partition identifier value and a new partition identifier value", which are not taught or suggested by the prior art of records.
Claims 27 and 36, which respectively depend on objected-to claims 26 and 35 respectively, are allowable for at least the same reasons as claims 26 and 35.
Claims 24, 26, 27, 33, 35 and 36 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the claimed features as mentioned above in combination with other claimed features are not recited or suggested by the prior art of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AGETSUMA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0139841) “DISTRIBUTED STORAGE SYSTEM, AND DATA-ACCESS METHOD THEREFOR”
Considered for teachings related to a distributed storage system and a data-access method therefor.
Does not disclose or suggest requesting, by a first storage system, mediation from a mediation service that resolves which storage system continues to service a dataset after a triggering event, wherein the first storage system and a second storage system are identified as having a membership in a set of storage systems that synchronously replicate the dataset; and based on a positive mediation result from the mediation service, removing, by the first storage system, the second storage system from the membership of the set of storage systems.
Pawar et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0344538) “SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR DETERMINING BLOCK CHARACTERISTICS IN A COMPUTER DATA STORAGE SYSTEM”
Considered for teachings related to computer data storage systems and, more specifically, to techniques for determining block characteristics in a computer data storage system.
Does not disclose or suggest requesting, by a first storage system, mediation from a mediation service that resolves which storage system continues to service a dataset after a triggering event, wherein the first storage system and a second storage system are identified as having a membership in a set of storage systems that synchronously replicate the dataset; and based on a positive mediation result from the mediation service, removing, by the first storage system, the second storage system from the membership of the set of storage systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Yong Choe at telephone number 571-270-1053 or email to yong.choe@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 am to 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutz, Jared Ian can be reached on (571) 272-5535. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
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 PMR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-irect.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).
/YONG J CHOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights