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
This action is in response to the application filed on 01/14/2025, in which claims 1-20 have been cancelled, claims 21-40 are presented for the examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/14/2025 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 21:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Determining that a first set of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than a second set;
Determining an active membership of storage systems, using the first set of storage system instead of second, in response to a communication fault between the first and second sets;
The claimed invention appears to be directed to the concept of selecting preferred resources based on measured performance and using that selection to make decisions. This is analogous to a fundamental data analysis and judgement, which courts have recognized as an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claim recites plurality of storage systems that replicate a dataset and experience communication faults.
However, the claim does not specify particular methods, protocols or architecture for how the storage systems determine active membership or handle faults.
The courts have found that merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer hardware is not sufficient. The claimed method, while applied to storage systems, does not recite any concrete mechanism or technical improvement to the storage systems themselves.
Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract into a patent-eligible application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
Copy/paste a corresponding line for each Prong Two line:
No novel storage architecture, data structure or algorithm is claimed. The claim does not recite non-generic steps for determining which set of storage systems to use or for computing active membership.
Recitation of plurality of storage systems which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The claims lack an inventive concept and are therefore patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 22-27 are rejected for the same rationale as claim 21.
As to claim 28:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Determining that a first set of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than a second set;
Determining an active membership of storage systems, using the first set of storage system instead of second, in response to a communication fault between the first and second sets;
The claimed invention appears to be directed to the concept of selecting preferred resources based on measured performance and using that selection to make decisions. This is analogous to a fundamental data analysis and judgement, which courts have recognized as an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claim recites plurality of storage systems that replicate a dataset and experience communication faults.
However, the claim does not specify particular methods, protocols or architecture for how the storage systems determine active membership or handle faults.
The courts have found that merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer hardware is not sufficient. The claimed method, while applied to storage systems, does not recite any concrete mechanism or technical improvement to the storage systems themselves.
Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract into a patent-eligible application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
Copy/paste a corresponding line for each Prong Two line:
No novel storage architecture, data structure or algorithm is claimed. The claim does not recite non-generic steps for determining which set of storage systems to use or for computing active membership.
Recitation of plurality of storage systems which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The claims lack an inventive concept and are therefore patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 29-35 are rejected for the same rationale as claim 28.
As to claim 37:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Determining that a first set of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than a second set;
Determining an active membership of storage systems, using the first set of storage system instead of second, in response to a communication fault between the first and second sets;
The claimed invention appears to be directed to the concept of selecting preferred resources based on measured performance and using that selection to make decisions. This is analogous to a fundamental data analysis and judgement, which courts have recognized as an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claim recites plurality of storage systems that replicate a dataset and experience communication faults.
However, the claim does not specify particular methods, protocols or architecture for how the storage systems determine active membership or handle faults.
The courts have found that merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer hardware is not sufficient. The claimed method, while applied to storage systems, does not recite any concrete mechanism or technical improvement to the storage systems themselves.
Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract into a patent-eligible application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
Copy/paste a corresponding line for each Prong Two line:
No novel storage architecture, data structure or algorithm is claimed. The claim does not recite non-generic steps for determining which set of storage systems to use or for computing active membership.
Recitation of plurality of storage systems which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The claims lack an inventive concept and are therefore patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 38-40 are rejected for the same rationale as claim 37.
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. 12282399. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, 37 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 8 and 17 of referenced US patent No. 12,282,399. That is claims 21, 28, 37 of instant application falls entirely within the scope of US Patent No. 12,282,399, in other words, claims 21, 28, 37 are anticipated by claims 1, 8, 17 of US patent No. 12,282,399 respectively. Dependent claims 22-27, 29-36, 38-40 are rejected for the same rationale.
Instant application 19/019773
Referenced Patent -12282399
21. A method comprising: determining that a first set of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than a second set of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems, wherein the plurality of storage systems replicates a dataset; and based on the determination, using the first set of storage systems, instead of the second set of storage systems, to determine an active membership in the plurality of storage systems in response to a communication fault between the first set of storage systems and the second set of storage systems.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes requesting, by at least one of the first set of storage systems, mediation from a mediation target only after a predetermined delay.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes use of a quorum protocol, and wherein each storage system of the first set of storage systems or the second set of storage systems corresponds to zero or more votes within the quorum protocol that determines whether a first set of one or more storage systems may detach a second set of one or more storage systems.
24. (New) The method of claim 23, wherein a respective quantity of votes corresponding to a respective storage system is dependent upon storage system characteristics.
25. (New) The method of claim 24, wherein a larger number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics above a predetermined threshold and a smaller number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics below the predetermined threshold.
26. (New) The method of claim 23, further comprising: determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that there is consistent communication among storage systems of the first set of one or more storage systems; determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, lack of communication with storage systems among the second set of one or more storage systems, wherein the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum; and determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum.
27. (New) The method of claim 26, further comprising: determining that the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the first set of one or more storage systems including exactly half of the votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
28. (New) An apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed within it computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out steps of: determining that a first set of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than a second set of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems, wherein the plurality of storage systems replicates a dataset; and based on the determination, using the first set of storage systems, instead of the second set of storage systems, to determine an active membership in the plurality of storage systems in response to a communication fault between the first set of storage systems and the second set of storage systems.
29. (New) The apparatus of claim 28, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes requesting, by at least one of the first set of storage systems, mediation from a mediation target only after a predetermined delay.
30. (New) The apparatus of claim 28, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes use of a quorum protocol, and wherein each storage system of the first set of storage systems or the second set of storage systems corresponds to zero or more votes within the quorum protocol that determines whether a first set of one or more storage systems may detach a second set of one or more storage systems.
31. (New) The apparatus of claim 30, wherein a respective quantity of votes corresponding to a respective storage system is dependent upon storage system characteristics.
32. (New) The apparatus of claim 31, wherein a larger number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics above a predetermined threshold and a smaller number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics below the predetermined threshold.
33. (New) The apparatus of claim 30, further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that there is consistent communication among storage systems of the first set of one or more storage systems; determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, lack of communication with storage systems among the second set of one or more storage systems, wherein the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum; and determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum.
34. (New) The apparatus of claim 33, further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: determining that the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the first set of one or more storage systems including exactly half of the votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
35. (New) The apparatus of claim 33, further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: determining that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the second set of one or more storage systems including half of the votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
36. (New) The apparatus of claim 29, wherein determining whether to request mediation from the mediation target is dependent upon the first set of storage systems being unable to obtain a quorum and no other set of the plurality of storage systems being able to obtain a quorum.
37. (New) A storage system comprising a computer processor and a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory including computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the storage system to carry out steps of: determining that a first set of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than a second set of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems, wherein the plurality of storage systems replicates a dataset; and based on the determination, using the first set of storage systems, instead of the second set of storage systems, to determine an active membership in the plurality of storage systems in response to a communication fault between the first set of storage systems and the second set of storage systems.
38. (New) The storage system of claim 37, wherein the computer program instructions further cause the storage system to carry out steps of: responsive to determining that the storage system is not a preferred storage system for winning mediation, requesting mediation from a mediation target, requesting mediation from the mediation target only after a predetermined delay.
39. (New) The storage system of claim 37, wherein the computer program instructions further cause the storage system to carry out steps of: determining, by a first set of one or more storage systems, that there is consistent communication among storage systems of the first set of one or more storage systems; determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, lack of communication with storage systems among a second set of one or more storage systems, wherein the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum; and determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum.
40. (New) The storage system of claim 39, further comprising: determining that the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the first set of one or more storage systems including exactly half of votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
1. A method comprising: detecting a communication fault between two sets of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems that are replicating a dataset; and based on the detection, determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems using a first set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems instead of a second set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems, wherein the first set of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than the second set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes requesting, by at least one of the first set of storage systems, mediation from a mediation target only after a predetermined delay.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes use of a quorum protocol, and wherein each storage system of the two sets of storage systems corresponds to zero or more votes within the quorum protocol that determines whether a first set of one or more storage systems may detach a second set of one or more storage systems.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein a respective quantity of votes corresponding to a respective storage system is dependent upon storage system characteristics.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein a larger number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics above a predetermined threshold and a smaller number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics below the predetermined threshold.
6. The method of claim 3, further comprising: determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that there is consistent communication among storage systems of the first set of one or more storage systems; determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, lack of communication with storage systems among the second set of one or more storage systems, wherein the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum; and determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: determining that the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the first set of one or more storage systems including exactly half of the votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
8. An apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed within its computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out steps of: detecting a communication fault between two sets of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems that are replicating a dataset; and based on the detection, determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems using a first set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems instead of a second set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems, wherein the first set of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than the second set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems.
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes requesting, by at least one of the first set of storage systems, mediation from a mediation target only after a predetermined delay.
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems includes use of a quorum protocol, and wherein each storage system of the two sets of storage systems corresponds to zero or more votes within the quorum protocol that determines whether a first set of one or more storage systems may detach a second set of one or more storage systems.
11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein a respective quantity of votes corresponding to a respective storage system is dependent upon storage system characteristics.
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein a larger number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics above a predetermined threshold and a smaller number of votes are given to storage systems with performance characteristics below the predetermined threshold.
13. The apparatus of claim 10, further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that there is consistent communication among storage systems of the first set of one or more storage systems; determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, lack of communication with storage systems among the second set of one or more storage systems, wherein the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum; and determining, by the first set of one or more storage systems, that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum.
14. The apparatus of claim 13, further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: determining that the first set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the first set of one or more storage systems including exactly half of the votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
15. The apparatus of claim 13, further comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: determining that the second set of one or more storage systems is unable to form a quorum in dependence upon the second set of one or more storage systems including half of the votes for the storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
16. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein determining whether to request mediation from the mediation target is dependent upon the first set of storage systems being unable to obtain a quorum and no other set of the plurality of storage systems being able to obtain a quorum.
17. A storage system comprising a computer processor and a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory including computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the storage system to carry out steps of: detecting a communication fault between two sets of storage systems of a plurality of storage systems that are replicating a dataset; and based on the detection, determining active membership in the plurality of storage systems using a first set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems instead of a second set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems, wherein the first set of storage systems satisfies storage performance criteria better than the second set of storage systems of the plurality of storage systems.
18. The storage system of claim 17, wherein the computer program instructions further cause the storage system to carry out steps of: responsive to determining that the storage system is not a preferred storage system for winning mediation, requesting mediation from a mediation target, requesting mediation from the mediation target only after a predetermined delay.
Claims 21, 28, 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.10,585,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28, 37 are generic to all that is recited in claims 10 of reference patent. That is, claims 21, 28, 37 are anticipated by claim 10 of reference patent.
Claims 23, 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4, 11, 15 of U.S. Patent No.10,585,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 23, 30 are generic to all that is recited in claims 4, 11, 15 of reference patent. That is, claims 23, 30 are anticipated by claims 4, 11, 15 of reference patent.
Claims 24, 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5, 16 of U.S. Patent No.10,585,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 24, 31 are generic to all that is recited in claims 5, 16 of reference patent. That is, claims 24, 31 are anticipated by claims 5, 16 of reference patent.
Claims 26, 33, 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6, 17 of U.S. Patent No.10,585,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 26, 33, 39 are generic to all that is recited in claims 6, 17 of reference patent. That is, claims 26, 33, 39 are anticipated by claims 6, 17 of reference patent.
Claims 27, 34, 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7, 18 of U.S. Patent No.10,585,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 27, 34, 40 are generic to all that is recited in claims 7, 18 of reference patent. That is, claims 27, 34, 40 are anticipated by claims 7, 18 of reference patent.
Claims 21, 28, 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10 and 19 of U.S. Patent No.11687423. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21, 28, 37 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 10, 19 of reference patent. That is, claims 21, 28, 37 are anticipated by claims 1, 10, 19 of reference patent. Dependent claims 22-27, 29-36, 38-40 are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “better than” in claims 1, 8 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “better than” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, 18-20 are rejected for the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 101, and double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Karumbunathan teaches determining active membership among a set of storage
systems, including: determining, by a cloud-based storage system among the set of storage systems, that a membership event corresponds to a change in membership to the set of storage systems synchronously replicating the dataset.
Strassburg teaches a computer system with read/write access to storage devices
creates a snapshot of a data volume at a point in time while continuing to accept access requests to the mirrored data volume by copying before making changes to the base data volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114