DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123.
Claim Status
This office action is responsive to preliminary amendment dated 01 April 2025. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and claims 21-40 added and are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04 June 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes Applicant’s disclosure recites “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire” ([000255-000256]).
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12260106. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially similar subject matter and the limitations of the Patent/Copending Application would anticipate those of the current application as shown in the example claims in the table below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12260106
21. (New) A method comprising:
determining a difference in blocks between a snapshot of a dataset at a first storage level storage system and at least one prior snapshot, of the dataset, that is at a second storage level storage system; and
migrating the difference in blocks from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system, wherein data of the dataset that can be reached by the snapshot is stored in the first storage level storage system and a portion of the dataset that can only be reached by the at least one prior snapshot is stored in the second storage level storage system.
1. A method comprising:
creating a snapshot of a dataset, wherein the snapshot includes user data and metadata;
offloading the snapshot of the dataset to a first storage level storage system;
determining a difference in blocks between the snapshot and at least one prior snapshot that is at a second storage level storage system; and
migrating the difference in blocks from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system, wherein data that can be reached by the snapshot is stored in the first storage level storage system and a portion of data that can only be reached by one or more previous versions of the snapshot are stored in the second storage level storage system.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. see MPEP § 804
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-25, 27-28, 30-32, 34-35, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu (US 20130219138 A1) in view of Natanzon (US 10031703 B1).
Referring to claims 21, 28, and 35, taking claim 28 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
A storage system comprising a plurality of storage devices, a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, ([Nasu abstract, 0048-0053, Figs. 5, 6] storage apparatus 10 is configured from a target port 11, a CPU 12, a bus 13, a cache memory 14, a memory 15) the computer memory having disposed within it computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the storage system to: ([Nasu 0051, 0056, Figs. 5, 6] The storage device 25 is, for example, configured from a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) and stores programs executed by the CPU 24 and various data. The CPU 12 performs various processing by executing programs stored in the memory 15.) determining a difference in blocks between a snapshot of a dataset at a first storage level storage system and at least one prior snapshot, of the dataset, that is at a second storage level storage system; ([Nasu abstract, 0041-0045, 0066, 0070, Fig. 4] differential data is generated when there is a difference between the migration-source and migration-destination golden image
generation configurations. As shown in FIG. 4, the computer system 1 is configured comprising a first storage apparatus 10A connected via one or more networks 40, a second storage apparatus 10B (hereinafter the first storage apparatus 10A and second storage apparatus 10B may be referred to in the description under the general term storage apparatus 10)) and migrating the difference in blocks from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system, ([Nasu abstract, 0041-0044, Figs. 18-19] when there is a difference between the migration-source and migration-destination golden image generation configurations, if a golden image (GI_0) which is the copy source of the golden image (GI_1) exists in the migration destination storage1, only the differential data of the golden image (GI_0) is copied to the storage1 to create the snapshot. Accordingly, the data copy size at the time of snapshot volume migration can be minimized and the processing time to migrate the snapshot volume can be reduced.).
Nasu does not explicitly disclose wherein data of the dataset that can be reached by the snapshot is stored in the first storage level storage system and a portion of the dataset that can only be reached by the at least one prior snapshot is stored in the second storage level storage system.
Natanzon teaches wherein data of the dataset that can be reached by the snapshot is stored in the first storage level storage system and a portion of the dataset that can only be reached by the at least one prior snapshot is stored in the second storage level storage system ([Natanzon col 7:46-col 8:47, Figs. 10A-10B] to determine which data should be moved from the first tier 570 to the second tier 580, a snapshot may be created in the first tier at a first time and, at a second time, a difference mechanism may determine which locations in the first tier 570 did not change in the snapshot over a certain period of time, move the data stored in those locations to the second tier 580, and then erase the snapshot. As illustrated in FIG. 10A, the virtualization device 1055 may receive a plurality of write I/Os from the host 1030 (1105) and direct the write I/Os to the first tier 1070 (1115). The virtualization device then may create a snapshot 1090 of the first tier 1070 (1125) and then, at a first time, transfer the data stored in the snapshot 1090 to the second tier 1080 (1130). As illustrated in FIG. 10B, at a second time, the second tier 1080 may create a snapshot 1095 at the second tier 1080 (1135). Once the data is transferred from the first tier 1070 to the second tier 1080, the snapshot 1090 may be freed/erased from the first tier 1070 (1140). It should be understood that the snapshot 1090 of the first tier 1070 may be taken periodically and the data may be shipped from the first tier 1070 to the second tier 1080 asynchronous from the creation of the snapshot 1095 on the second tier 1090.).
Nasu and Natanzon are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Nasu and Natanzon before him or her to modify the system of Nasu to include the snapshot difference mechanism of Natanzon, thereafter the system is connected to multiple configurable processors. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of allowing the system to move stale data to snapshots in lower tiers while maintaining current data in higher tiers as suggested by Natanzon. It is known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nasu with Natanzon to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As per the non-exemplary claim(s), this/these claim(s) has/have similar limitations and is/are rejected based on the reasons given above.
Referring to claims 23, 30, and 37, taking claim 30 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
The storage system of claim 28 wherein the first storage level storage system provides lower read latency than the second storage level storage system ([Natanzon abstract] The method includes exposing a virtual LUN comprising a first LUN in a first tier of storage having a first latency and a second LUN in a second tier of storage having a second latency and managing the virtual LUN according to properties of the first LUN, properties of the second LUN, and a policy.).
Nasu and Natanzon are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Nasu and Natanzon before him or her to modify the system of Nasu to include the dynamic latency support mechanism of Natanzon, thereafter the system is connected to dynamic latency support mechanism. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of allowing the system to support a varied configuration of systems to meet customer needs at different levels as suggested by Natanzon. It is known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nasu with Natanzon to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As per the non-exemplary claim(s), this/these claim(s) has/have similar limitations and is/are rejected based on the reasons given above.
Referring to claims 24, 31, and 38, taking claim 31 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
The storage system of claim 28 wherein the snapshot is migrated from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system using multi-part migration ([Nasu 0037, 0040-0041, 0087-0096] Furthermore, technology may also be provided whereby, if a plurality of updatable snapshots (Writable Snapshots: WSS) are provided, update content can be efficiently copied to all the snapshots if necessary. As shown in FIG. 15, the virtual machine migration program 313 first gets the ID of the migration target virtual machine (VM) and the ID of the migration destination second storage apparatus 10B (S101)).
As per the non-exemplary claim(s), this/these claim(s) has/have similar limitations and is/are rejected based on the reasons given above.
Referring to claims 25, 32, and 39, taking claim 32 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
The storage system of claim 28 wherein the snapshot is maintained in the first storage level storage system and one or more previous versions of the snapshot are maintained in the second storage level storage system ([Nasu claim 14] wherein a golden image is stored in the parent volume, and wherein the controller receives a migration instruction to migrate the virtual machine formed by the snapshot volume, specifies the generation of the snapshot volume used in the virtual machine, and makes the generation the copy target.).
As per the non-exemplary claim(s), this/these claim(s) has/have similar limitations and is/are rejected based on the reasons given above.
Referring to claims 27, 34, and 40, taking claim 34 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
The storage system of claim 28 wherein the snapshot maintained in the first storage level storage system and one or more previous versions of the snapshot maintained in the second storage level storage system share data blocks ([Nasu 0037, claim 14] wherein a golden image is stored in the parent volume, and wherein the controller receives a migration instruction to migrate the virtual machine formed by the snapshot volume, specifies the generation of the snapshot volume used in the virtual machine, and makes the generation the copy target. Furthermore, technology may also be provided whereby, if a plurality of updatable snapshots (Writable Snapshots: WSS) are provided, update content can be efficiently copied to all the snapshots if necessary. With such technology, for example, because a volume (golden image: GI) whereon an OS is installed can be logically copied, a virtual machine can be rapidly placed in an available state (deployed). Further, the disk usage amount can be reduced because the golden image is shared between virtual machines.).
Claim(s) 22, 29, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20130219138 A1) in view of Natanzon (US 10031703 B1) as applied to claim 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of Burton (US 20040260900 A1).
Referring to claims 22, 29, and 36, taking claim 29 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
The storage system of claim 28 (see above).
Nasu in view of Natanzon does not explicitly disclose wherein, after the snapshot is migrated from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system, metadata of the snapshot is stored in the first storage level storage system and user data is stored in the second storage level storage system.
Burton teaches wherein, after the snapshot is migrated from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system, metadata of the snapshot is stored in the first storage level storage system and user data is stored in the second storage level storage system ([Burton abstract, 0006, 0008, 0034] source VLUN metadata to preserve original data of first snapshot and second snapshot and a target VLUN to store migrated snapshot data (i.e. user data)).
Nasu, Natanzon, and Burton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Nasu, Natanzon, and Burton before him or her to modify the system of Nasu and Natanzon to include the source metadata and target VLUN of Burton, thereafter the system is connected to source metadata and target VLUN. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of allowing the system have more tracking capability of active and snapshot data as suggested by Burton. It is known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nasu and Natanzon with Burton to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As per the non-exemplary claim(s), this/these claim(s) has/have similar limitations and is/are rejected based on the reasons given above.
Claim(s) 26 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20130219138 A1) in view of Natanzon (US 10031703 B1) as applied to claim 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of Davis (US 20150020059 A1).
Referring to claims 26 and 33, taking claim 33 as exemplary, Nasu in view of Natanzon teaches
The storage system of claim 28 (see above).
Nasu in view of Natanzon does not explicitly disclose wherein the storage system includes a storage controller and an offload module, and wherein migrating the snapshot from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system is performed by the offload module, wherein the offload module is external to the storage controller ([]).
Davis teaches wherein the storage system includes a storage controller and an offload module, and wherein migrating the snapshot from the first storage level storage system to the second storage level storage system is performed by the offload module, wherein the offload module is external to the storage controller ([Davis abstract, 0016, 0058, 0072] A migration engine to perform system migration operations is provided. One or more processors may be configured to execute instructions to perform one or more of the following. Information indicative of one or more migration candidates corresponding to one or more system components in a source system may be collected. A migration strategy may be determined at least partially based on the information indicative of one or more migration candidates. The one or more migration candidates may be mapped to one or more system components of a target system.).
Nasu, Natanzon, and Davis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Nasu, Natanzon, and Davis before him or her to modify the system of Nasu and Natanzon to include the multiple configurable processors of Davis, thereafter the system is connected to multiple configurable processors. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of allowing the system have more processors each configured/dedicated to carry out specific tasks like migration (i.e. offload module) or storage commands (i.e. storage controller) as suggested by Davis. It is known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nasu and Natanzon with Davis to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As per the non-exemplary claim(s), this/these claim(s) has/have similar limitations and is/are rejected based on the reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO A GRULLON whose telephone number is (571)272-8318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)272-3978. 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.
/FRANCISCO A GRULLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights