DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-3 and 5, drawn to a data management system and a method thereof, wherein all the pluralities of storage nodes, racks, and regions, are connected via the said plurality of networks with data block being arranged in a 2D array of rows and columns and parity is created using erasure coding, classified in G06F11/1612.
II. Claim 4, drawn to a data repairing method for repairing all failed blocks in a selected column and row, classified in G06F11/14.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as repairing all failed blocks in a selected column and row. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Invention II repairs failed data blocks in selected columns and rows where Invention I does not do any of that.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Floyd Canfield on 07/31/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-3 and 5. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5:
This claim recites the limitation "the main region" and “the main rack” in line 4 and throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
This claim recites the limitation "the smallest number of helper regions" and “the total number of surviving blocks” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The variable k1 is not defined in the claim. This renders this claim indefinite because it is not known whether k1 is a negative or positive number. Clarification and correction are required.
This claim recites the limitation "the relay" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This claim recites the limitation "the same region" and “said relays” in lines 12-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
This claim recites the limitation "said collected surviving blocks" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This claim recites the limitation "the number of surviving blocks" in lines 16-17. 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 –
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YEKHANIN et al. (US 20140380126 A1), hereinafter YEKHANIN.
Claim 1:
YEKHANIN teaches a data management system, comprising: a plurality of storage nodes, a plurality of racks, a plurality of regions, a plurality of networks; wherein each of the said plurality of racks comprises at least k2+m2 storage nodes, where k2 and m2 are positive integers; wherein each of the said plurality of regions comprises ml of the said plurality of racks, where ml is a positive integer; wherein all the pluralities of storage nodes, racks, and regions, are connected via the said plurality of networks; wherein a unit of input data is divided into a set of data blocks; wherein all blocks in the said set of data blocks are arranged in a two- dimensional array of ki columns and k2 rows, where ki is a positive integer; wherein all said data blocks in the same row are encoded into ml row parity blocks using an erasure code, where ml is a positive integer; wherein ml columns are added to the said two-dimensional array and one of the said row parity blocks in a row is added to each of the additional mi columns; wherein all said data blocks in the same column are encoded into m2 column parity blocks using an erasure code; wherein m2 rows are added to the said two-dimensional array and one of the said column parity blocks in a column is added to each of the additional m2 rows; wherein each of the said plurality of racks stores all said data blocks, said row parity blocks, and said column parity blocks in a said column; wherein each of the said plurality of racks stores at most one block in the set of said data blocks, said row parity blocks, and said column parity blocks in a said row; wherein each of the said plurality of storage nodes stores at most one block in the set of said data blocks, said row parity blocks, and said column parity blocks for each said unit of input data essentially by a system for erasure coding data across multiple storage zone. The system includes dividing a data chunk into a plurality of sub-fragments, each of the plurality of sub-fragments having one or more zone data-fragments, each of the plurality of sub-fragments is associated with one of a plurality of zones. The encoder component is also configured for computing a plurality of reconstruction parities, each of the plurality of reconstruction parities computed using at least one sub-fragment from the plurality of sub-fragments. The plurality of reconstruction parities comprises at least one cross-zone parity. The encoder component is further configured for: assigning the at least one cross-zone parity to a parity zone, wherein the cross-zone parity provides cross-zone reconstruction of a portion of the data chunk. The system also includes a reconstruction component configured for: reconstructing data using the plurality of sub-fragments and the plurality of reconstruction parities, associated with the first zone, the second zone, and the third zone. The data is reconstructed based on an erasure coding scheme of the data, and recovering data for a first erasure coding scheme comprises: providing local reconstruction within a recovery zone and maximum fault-tolerance across zones using local parities and zone parities; for a second erasure coding scheme comprises: providing local reconstruction within the recovery zone and maximum fault-tolerance across zones using local parities and inter-zone parities; and for a third erasure coding scheme comprises: providing maximum fault-tolerance across zones using inter-zone parities. (¶ [0069], Fig. 18, ¶ [0153]). Columns taught in ¶ [0143]. Row parities taught in ¶ [0150].
Claim 2:
YEKHANIN teaches wherein the said column parity blocks of the said same row are encoded into ml global parity blocks using an erasure code; wherein one of the said global parity blocks of a row is added to each of the said ml columns of row parity blocks; wherein each of the said plurality of racks stores all said data blocks, said row parity blocks, said column parity blocks, and said global parity blocks in a said column; wherein each of the said plurality of racks stores at most one block in the set of said data blocks, said row parity blocks, said column parity blocks, and said global parity blocks in a said row; wherein each of the said plurality of storage nodes stores at most one block in the set of said data blocks, said row parity blocks, said column parity blocks, and said global parity blocks for each said unit of input data. (¶ [0069], Fig. 18, ¶ [0153]). Columns taught in ¶ [0143]. Row parities taught in ¶ [0150].
Claim 3:
YEKHANIN teaches wherein all said row parity blocks of the same said column are encoded into m2 global parity blocks using an erasure code; wherein one of the said global parity blocks of a column is added to each of the said m2 rows of column parity blocks; wherein each of the said plurality of racks stores all said data blocks, said row parity blocks, said column parity blocks, and said global parity blocks in a said column; wherein each of the said plurality of racks stores at most one block in the set of said data blocks, said row parity blocks, said column parity blocks, and said global parity blocks in a said row; wherein each of the said plurality of storage nodes stores at most one block in the set of said data blocks, said row parity blocks, said column parity blocks, and said global parity blocks for each said unit of input data. (¶ [0069], Fig. 18, ¶ [0153]). Columns taught in ¶ [0143]. Row parities taught in ¶ [0150].
Claim 5:
YEKHANIN teaches a data repairing method, comprising taking a row of blocks that has f failed blocks as input, where f is a positive integer; selecting a region as the main region and a rack as the main rack; selecting the smallest number of helper regions, such that the total number of surviving blocks in this row in all said helper regions and the said main region is at least ki; transferring ki surviving blocks to the said main rack either when f > 1 or when f = 1 and the number of surviving blocks in each of the said helper regions equals one; selecting a rack that stores at least one surviving block in each of the said helper regions as the relay, collecting other surviving blocks in racks within the same region at each of the said relays, computing a partially decoded block at each of the said relays using an erasure code and the said collected surviving blocks at each of the said relays, and transferring all said partially decoded blocks to the said main rack, when f = 1 and the number of surviving blocks in each of the said helper regions is greater than one; decoding all of the said f failed blocks in the said row of blocks in the said main rack; redistributing the said decoded f blocks from the said main rack to other racks and regions essentially by a system for erasure coding data across multiple storage zone. The system includes dividing a data chunk into a plurality of sub-fragments, each of the plurality of sub-fragments having one or more zone data-fragments, each of the plurality of sub-fragments is associated with one of a plurality of zones. The encoder component is also configured for computing a plurality of reconstruction parities, each of the plurality of reconstruction parities computed using at least one sub-fragment from the plurality of sub-fragments. The plurality of reconstruction parities comprises at least one cross-zone parity. The encoder component is further configured for: assigning the at least one cross-zone parity to a parity zone, wherein the cross-zone parity provides cross-zone reconstruction of a portion of the data chunk. The system also includes a reconstruction component configured for: reconstructing data using the plurality of sub-fragments and the plurality of reconstruction parities, associated with the first zone, the second zone, and the third zone. The data is reconstructed based on an erasure coding scheme of the data, and recovering data for a first erasure coding scheme comprises: providing local reconstruction within a recovery zone and maximum fault-tolerance across zones using local parities and zone parities; for a second erasure coding scheme comprises: providing local reconstruction within the recovery zone and maximum fault-tolerance across zones using local parities and inter-zone parities; and for a third erasure coding scheme comprises: providing maximum fault-tolerance across zones using inter-zone parities. (¶ [0069], Fig. 18, ¶ [0153], failed storage nodes and zones, ¶¶ [0114]-[0116]). Columns taught in ¶ [0143]. Row parities taught in ¶ [0150].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shen et al., (Cross-Rack-Aware Updates in Erasure-Coded Data Centers: Design and Evaluation, October 2020, IEEE, VOL. 31, NO. 10, pp. 2315-2328) teaches the update performance in erasure-coded data centers is often bottlenecked by the constrained cross-rack bandwidth. We propose CAU, a cross-rack-aware update mechanism that aims to mitigate the cross-rack update traffic in erasure-coded data centers. CAU builds on three design elements: (i) selective parity updates, which select the appropriate parity update approach based on the update pattern and the data layout to reduce the cross-rack update traffic; (ii) data grouping, which relocates and groups updated data chunks in the same rack to further reduce the cross-rack update traffic; and (iii) interim replication, which stores a specified number of temporary replicas for each newly updated data chunk. We evaluate CAU via trace-driven analysis, local cluster experiments, and Amazon EC2 experiments. We show that CAU enhances state-of-the-arts by mitigating the cross-rack update traffic as well as maintaining high update performance in both local cluster and geo-distributed environments.(Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J TABONE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3827. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571) 270-3750. 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.
/JOHN J TABONE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights