DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filed application 19/004,734 on December 30, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 6, 2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sethi et al. (US 2024/0356750) in further view of Gordon et al. (US 2002/0194015).
In regard to claim 1, Sethi et al. teach a method for synchronizing data, comprising:
determining, in response to that a replication session in a source cluster is initiated, a recovery point objective of the replication session (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40) and a plurality of parameters of each device in a plurality of devices in a remote cluster (a policy is a collection of information identifying of source data to be protected, backup schedule and retention requirements, identify of a service level agreement (SLA) that applies to source data, identify of a target device where source data is to be stored, para. 38-41), the plurality of parameters comprising at least performance headroom (may map capacity requirements to available resources, para. 27) and a recovery point objective of a resident replication session (session parameters, para. 254);
selecting a target device from the plurality of devices based on the recovery point objective of the replication session and the plurality of parameters (select a particular target device based on the ability of the target device to meet requirements imposed by the SLA, para. 39).
Sethi et al. does not explicitly teach synchronizing data associated with the replication session from the source cluster to the target device in the remote cluster.
Gordon et al. teach of a distributed database clustering storage replication solutions is to duplicate and changes are copied, synchronously or asynchronously where in the case of synchronous replication, completion of a commit operation requires a typical synchronous storage replication system to store a new transaction on some or all devices in a manner that guarantees the redundancy (para. 14-15).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Sethi et al. by adding Gordon et al. replication. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in keeping the data continuously synchronized (para. 84).
In regard to claim 2, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of parameters further comprise the capacity utilization, number of resident storage units for storing data, and idle capacity of each device in the remote cluster (the system may deliver computing power, storage capacity, and data protection as a service to users … may map capacity requirements to available resources and may be configured for workload placement collaboration and computing resources, para. 27, 126).
In regard to claim 3, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 2, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices comprises:
determining a first score for each device based on the capacity utilization of each device and a preset value (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the first score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 4, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 3, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises:
determining, based on the number of resident storage units of each device (rule may specify that a hard disk drive having a particular performance parameter, para. 39), a second score for each device, wherein in a case that the number of resident storage units of a first device is greater than the number of resident storage units of a second device, the second score for the first device is less than the second score for the second device (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score and the second score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 5, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 4, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41), based on the idle capacity of each device (selection of a target device may result in over-utilized or under-utilized target device, para. 42), a third score for each device, wherein in a case that the idle capacity of the first device is greater than the idle capacity of the second device, the third score for the first device is greater than the third score for the second device (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score, the second score, and the third score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 6, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 5, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41), based on the performance headroom of each device (selection of a target device may result in over-utilized or under-utilized target device, para. 42), a fourth score for each device, wherein in a case that the performance headroom of the first device is greater than the performance headroom of the second device, the fourth score for the first device is greater than the fourth score for the second device (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score, the second score, the third score, and the fourth score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 7, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 6, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41), based on the recovery point objective of the replication session in the source cluster and the recovery point objective of each replication session in each device (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40), a fifth score for each device, wherein in a case that a first number is greater than a second number, the fifth score for the first device is less than the fifth score for the second device, the first number is the number of resident replication sessions in the first device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session, and the second number is the number of resident replication sessions in the second device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score, the second score, the third score, the fourth score, and the fifth score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 8, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices comprises:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41) a score for each device based on the recovery point objective of the replication session (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40) and the plurality of parameters (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the score for each device (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 9, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 8, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41) whether a first number is greater than a second number in response to that scores of a first device and a second device are the same, wherein the first number is the number of resident replication sessions in the first device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session, and the second number is the number of resident replication sessions in the second device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the second device as the target device in response to the first number being greater than the second number (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 10, Sethi et al. teach the method according to claim 9, wherein selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41) whether the idle capacity of the first device is greater than the idle capacity of the second device in response to the scores of the first device and the second device being the same and the first number being the same as the second number (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the first device as the target device in response to that the idle capacity of the first device is greater than the idle capacity of the second device (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 11, Sethi et al. teach an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (servers, fig. 2, 206); and coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform actions which include:
determining, in response to that a replication session in a source cluster is initiated, a recovery point objective of the replication session (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40) and a plurality of parameters of each device in a plurality of devices in a remote cluster (a policy is a collection of information identifying of source data to be protected, backup schedule and retention requirements, identify of a service level agreement (SLA) that applies to source data, identify of a target device where source data is to be stored, para. 38-41), the plurality of parameters comprising at least performance headroom (may map capacity requirements to available resources, para. 27) and a recovery point objective of a resident replication session (session parameters, para. 254);
selecting a target device from the plurality of devices based on the recovery point objective of the replication session and the plurality of parameters (select a particular target device based on the ability of the target device to meet requirements imposed by the SLA, para. 39).
Sethi et al. does not explicitly teach synchronizing data associated with the replication session from the source cluster to the target device in the remote cluster.
Gordon et al. teach of a distributed database clustering storage replication solutions is to duplicate and changes are copied, synchronously or asynchronously where in the case of synchronous replication, completion of a commit operation requires a typical synchronous storage replication system to store a new transaction on some or all devices in a manner that guarantees the redundancy (para. 14-15).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 12, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 11, wherein the plurality of parameters further comprise the capacity utilization, number of resident storage units for storing data, and idle capacity of each device in the remote cluster (the system may deliver computing power, storage capacity, and data protection as a service to users … may map capacity requirements to available resources and may be configured for workload placement collaboration and computing resources, para. 27, 126).
In regard to claim 13, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 12, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices comprises instructions for the following:
determining a first score for each device based on the capacity utilization of each device and a preset value (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the first score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 14, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 13, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises instructions for the following:
determining, based on the number of resident storage units of each device (rule may specify that a hard disk drive having a particular performance parameter, para. 39), a second score for each device, wherein in a case that the number of resident storage units of a first device is greater than the number of resident storage units of a second device, the second score for the first device is less than the second score for the second device (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score and the second score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 15, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 14, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises instructions for the following:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41), based on the idle capacity of each device (selection of a target device may result in over-utilized or under-utilized target device, para. 42), a third score for each device, wherein in a case that the idle capacity of the first device is greater than the idle capacity of the second device, the third score for the first device is greater than the third score for the second device (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score, the second score, and the third score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 16, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 15, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises instructions for the following:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41), based on the performance headroom of each device (selection of a target device may result in over-utilized or under-utilized target device, para. 42), a fourth score for each device, wherein in a case that the performance headroom of the first device is greater than the performance headroom of the second device, the fourth score for the first device is greater than the fourth score for the second device (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score, the second score, the third score, and the fourth score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 17, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 16, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises instructions for the following:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41), based on the recovery point objective of the replication session in the source cluster and the recovery point objective of each replication session in each device (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40), a fifth score for each device, wherein in a case that a first number is greater than a second number, the fifth score for the first device is less than the fifth score for the second device, the first number is the number of resident replication sessions in the first device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session, and the second number is the number of resident replication sessions in the second device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the first score, the second score, the third score, the fourth score, and the fifth score (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 18, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 11, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices comprises instructions for the following:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41) a score for each device based on the recovery point objective of the replication session (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40) and the plurality of parameters (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the target device from the plurality of devices based on the score for each device (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 19, Sethi et al. teach the device according to claim 18, wherein the instruction for selecting the target device from the plurality of devices further comprises instructions for the following:
determining (determine target devices that are best suited to meet user SLAs, para. 41) whether a first number is greater than a second number in response to that scores of a first device and a second device are the same, wherein the first number is the number of resident replication sessions in the first device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session, and the second number is the number of resident replication sessions in the second device with the same recovery point objective as the replication session (user may specify one or more user performance requirements … that defines a target device to be chosen, para. 40-41, it is noted that the score can be interpreted as one of the performance requirements); and
selecting the second device as the target device in response to the first number being greater than the second number (using a recovery point objective (RPO) requirement for selecting a particular target device, para. 39-40).
In regard to claim 20, Sethi et al. teach a computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium which stores a set of instructions to synchronize data; the set of instructions, when carried out by computerized circuitry, causing the computerized circuitry to perform a method of:
determining, in response to that a replication session in a source cluster is initiated, a recovery point objective of the replication session (recovery point objective (RPO) requirements, para. 40) and a plurality of parameters of each device in a plurality of devices in a remote cluster (a policy is a collection of information identifying of source data to be protected, backup schedule and retention requirements, identify of a service level agreement (SLA) that applies to source data, identify of a target device where source data is to be stored, para. 38-41), the plurality of parameters comprising at least performance headroom (may map capacity requirements to available resources, para. 27) and a recovery point objective of a resident replication session (session parameters, para. 254);
selecting a target device from the plurality of devices based on the recovery point objective of the replication session and the plurality of parameters (select a particular target device based on the ability of the target device to meet requirements imposed by the SLA, para. 39).
Sethi et al. does not explicitly teach synchronizing data associated with the replication session from the source cluster to the target device in the remote cluster.
Gordon et al. teach of a distributed database clustering storage replication solutions is to duplicate and changes are copied, synchronously or asynchronously where in the case of synchronous replication, completion of a commit operation requires a typical synchronous storage replication system to store a new transaction on some or all devices in a manner that guarantees the redundancy (para. 14-15).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Raju A et al. (US 2024/0305688) (Rubrik) determine node for replication request
Du et al. (US 11,593,233) (EMC) RPO for replication
Narasingarayanapeta et al. (US 2022/0357854) (NetApp) synchronous replication for cluster
Gunjikar et al. (US 2022/0156164) (Diamanti Inc.) target cluster for replication volume
Pulamarasetti et al. (US 2006/0129562) RPO replication scheme
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan Truong whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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 on 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov" Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights