DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 01/17/2025. Claims 1 - 24 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 7 – 8, 15 – 16, and 23 - 24 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “their respective dynamically extensible file systems”. It is unclear what device or devices are being referred to with “their”. Claim 7 discloses multiple nodes and a cluster. Base claim 1 discloses a pod, a plurality of RAID groups, a distributed storage system, source node, and a destination node to name a few structures. It is unclear which structure is linked to the dynamically extensible file systems. The specification and drawings fail to remedy the uncertainty of the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “dynamically extensible file systems (DEFSs)” and then later in the claims discloses DEFS and DESFs. The term “dynamically extensible file systems” indicates multiple systems. It is unclear if the acronym DEFSs is meant to mean a plurality of the multiple dynamically extensible file systems, a single group of dynamically extensible file systems, or a single system that is a dynamically extensible file system. This makes the use of DEFS and DESFs in the claim unclear since it is unclear how many dynamically extensible file systems each acronym refers to exactly. The specification and drawings fail to remedy the uncertainty of the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “allocation areas (AAs)” and then later refers to AA and AAs. The term “allocations areas” indicates areas. It is unclear if the acronym AAs is meant to mean a plurality of the allocation areas, a single group of allocation areas, or a single allocation area. This makes the use of AA and AAs in the claim unclear since it is unclear how many allocation areas each acronym refers to exactly. The specification and drawings fail to remedy the uncertainty of the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected for being dependent on claim 7 and also for containing the DEFS and DEFSs limitation as rejected in claim 7.
Claims 15 – 16 and 23 – 24 contain similar language as claims 7 – 8 and are rejected for similar reasons as claim 7 – 8.
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) 1 – 6, 9 – 14, 17 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0114117) referred to as Patel in view of George et al. (Pat 10,031,682) referred to as George.
Regarding claim 1, Patel teaches providing a storage pod [160, Fig 1] having a group of disks [130, Fig 1] containing a plurality of Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) groups [Paragraphs 0027 – 0028 and 0041; The disks 130 are organized into multiple RAID groups], wherein an entirety of a global physical volume block number (PVBN) space [Paragraph 0007; The aggregate comprises disks organized into RAID groups and the aggregate has a global PVBN] associated with the storage pod [160, Fig 1] is visible and accessible to all nodes of a plurality of nodes of a cluster [110, Fig 1; Paragraphs 0026 and 0029; Each client is a node] representing a distributed storage system [110 and 120, Fig 1; Paragraphs 0007, 0026, and 0029; The combinations of clients and storage system and disk array is a distributed storage system since the storage system 120 and 160 is distributed across the multiple clients using the PVBN of 160], file system metadata [305, Fig 3; 512, Fig 5; Paragraphs 0036 and 0042; The information that defines 305 and is in 305 is metadata about the file system detailing the inode structure of the file system], and copying a source volume [505, Fig 5] to a destination volume [650, Fig 5; Paragraphs 0046 - 0050.
However, Patel may not specifically disclose the limitation(s) of nodes representing a distributed storage system and moving a source volume from a source node of the plurality of nodes of the cluster to a destination node of the plurality of nodes of the cluster without transferring underlying volume data of the source volume by copying file system metadata associated with a first container file representing the source volume to the destination node.
George discloses nodes representing a distributed storage system [116 and 118, Fig 1; Column 3, Lines 46 – 63; Nodes 116 and 118 provide a distributed storage architecture which is a distributed storage system] and moving a source volume [138, Fig 1] from a source node [102 and 132, Fig 1] of the plurality of nodes of the cluster [Fig 1; Items 102 and 132 are a source node and items 104 and 140 are a destination node] to a destination node [104 and 134, Fig 1] of the plurality of nodes of the cluster [Fig 1; Items 102 and 132 are a source node and items 104 and 140 are a destination node] without transferring underlying volume data of the source volume [138, Fig 1] by copying file system metadata associated with a first container file representing the source volume [138, Fig 1] to the destination node [306, Fig 3; Column 11, Lines 59 – 67; Column 12, Lines 1 – 3; A source volume is moved to a destination volume by only moving metadata of the source volume and not the related data of the source volume].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate George in Patel, because it reduces the durations and expense of data migration [Column 2, Lines 11 – 31].
Regarding claim 2, George discloses moving [Fig 3; Column 11, Lines 59 – 67; Column 12, Lines 1 – 3] further comprises creating, by the destination node [104 and 134, Fig 1], a destination volume [140, Fig 1; Column 11, Lines 59 – 67; Column 12, Lines 1 – 3; Adding metadata to the destination volume creates the destination volume] associated with the destination node [104 and 134, Fig 1].
Regarding claim 3, Patel teaches the file system metadata comprises content of an index node (inode) of a first container file representing the source volume [305, Fig 3; 512, Fig 5; Paragraphs 0036 and 0042; The inode of the parent vvol is in container file 1210] and copying the content of the inode to a second inode of a second container file representing the destination volume [305, Fig 3; 512, Fig 5; Paragraphs 0036, 0042, 0046 - 0050; The inode 512 is copied to inode 672 which is part of container file 640].
George discloses moving a volume [306, Fig 3; Column 11, Lines 59 – 67; Column 12, Lines 1 – 3; A source volume is moved to a destination volume by only moving metadata of the source volume and not the related data of the source volume].
Regarding claim 4, Patel teaches a file system implemented by the source node comprises a write-anywhere file system in which writes are performed to free blocks rather than overwriting existing blocks [Paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0019, 0032 – 0035; The file system is write anywhere file system].
Regarding claim 5, Patel teaches the file system metadata comprises a PVBN at a top of a node tree representing the source volume [300, Fig 3; Paragraphs 0036, 0042, 0046 – 0050; Each volume is represented by a node tree] and wherein copying is accomplished by copying the PVBN to the destination node [Paragraphs 0007, 0041, and 0048; The PVBN from the source is the same in the destination].
George discloses moving a volume [306, Fig 3; Column 11, Lines 59 – 67; Column 12, Lines 1 – 3; A source volume is moved to a destination volume by only moving metadata of the source volume and not the related data of the source volume].
Regarding claim 6, Patel teaches wherein said copying further comprises sending a message identifying a set of one or more PVBNs of a first container file representing the source volume from the source node to the destination node [305, Fig 3; 512, Fig 5; Paragraphs 0036, 0042, 0046 - 0050; The inode 512 is copied to inode 672 which is part of container file 640. The PVBN information is copied in a message from the source volume to the destination volume in the cloning process].
George discloses moving a volume [306, Fig 3; Column 11, Lines 59 – 67; Column 12, Lines 1 – 3; A source volume is moved to a destination volume by only moving metadata of the source volume and not the related data of the source volume].
Claim 9 – 14 and 17 – 22 are corresponding system and medium of claims 1 – 6. Patel teaches the system [Fig 1], one or more processing resources [122, Fig 1], instructions [Paragraph 0064; Software is instructions that are executed] that are executed by the one or processing resources [122, Fig 1], and a medium storing the instructions [Paragraph 0064; Software is instructions that are executed and are stored on a medium] that are processing by the one or more processing resources [122, Fig 1].
Examiner’s Note
Due to the numerous inconsistencies identified above between the current claims and original specification and drawings any lack of prior art rejection(s) is due to a proper scope of the claim(s) not being ascertained at this time. The lack of any prior art rejections is not to be taken as any indication of patentability; it is a result of the indefiniteness of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what the dynamically extensible file systems belong to, how many dynamically extensible file systems there are, how many dynamically extensible file systems DEFS and DESFs refer to, how many allocation areas there are, and how many allocation areas AA and AAs refer to. A search of the inventive concept from the specification was performed and any related references are provided. The Applicant is asked to make sure any future amendments to the claims put the claims in better form with regard to what is specifically disclosed in the original specification and drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights