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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7 February 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0233582) in view of Mritunjai (U.S. Patent No. 9,983,823) and Shang et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0352037).
Claim 1:Chen et al. disclose a computer-implemented method performed by one or more processing resources of a distributed storage system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
transitioning from an asynchronous replication to initiating bi-directional replication including a forward synchronization process from one or more storage fobjects of a first consistency group (CG1) of a primary storage site to one or more storage objects of a second consistency group (CG2) of a secondary storage site [fig. 4; pars. 0054-0064 – “In transitioning to sync or metro replication from async replication, a delta between the consistency group and the last transition cycle base snap set is transferred to a target transition cycle snap set (columns 404 and 408, respectively).”]; and
performing a reverse synchronization process from the one or more storage objects of the CG2 to the one or more storage objects of the CG1 including instantiating a reverse splitter on each volume of CG2, establishing reverse sync replication sessions for each storage object of the CG2, and allowing input output (IO) access to the one or more storage objects of the CG2 [fig. 4; pars. 0054-0064 – “As part of the mode transitioning, a transition replication cycle is performed via customized functions for each of the replication modes. In transitioning to sync or metro replication from async replication, a delta between the consistency group and the last transition cycle base snap set is transferred to a target transition cycle snap set (columns 404 and 408, respectively). The mode transitioning cycle custom functions also include, in transitioning to sync or metro replication from async mode, transferring a delta between the consistency group at the source system and a most recent base snap set from the mode transition cycle to the mode transition cycle snap set at the target system (columns 404 and 408, respectively).” … “To enter metro replication mode, as the target transition cycle snap set is now equivalent to the source production consistency group, the consistency group is refreshed to the transition cycle snap set and bi-direction IO mirroring is initiated (column 408).”].
However, Chen et al. do not specifically disclose,
converting the one or more storage objects of the CG2 from data protection read only access to read write access;
In the same field of endeavor, Mritunjai discloses
converting the one or more storage objects of the CG2 from data protection read only access to read write access [column 3, line 56 – column 4, line 10 – “In some embodiments, the database services described herein may store multiple replicas split across multiple availability zones. Each availability zone in the topology may contain a full slaving tree that includes a leader replica and multiple read-only secondary replicas that receive data through synchronous or asynchronous replication, in different embodiments.”];
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen et al. to include read-only copies of data in the asynchronous mode, as taught by Mritunjai, in order to increase security of backups of data.
Chen et al. and Mritunjai disclose all the limitations above but do not specifically disclose,
bi-directional synchronous replication [It is believed that metro replication is synchronous as it more closely aligns with sync than async in the description of Chen et al.]
In the same field of endeavor, Shang et al. disclose,
bi-directional synchronous replication [par. 0003 – “Asynchronous and/or synchronous replication is a common storage technology for long-distance metro level data protection.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Chen et al. and Mritunjai to include bi-directional synchronous replication, as taught by Shang et al., in order to improve data consistency by ensuring data is replicated before completing the transaction.
Claim 7 (as applied to claim 1 above):
Chen et al. disclose the method, further comprises:
performing an asynchronous baseline snapshot transfer process to capture a CG coordinated baseline snapshot for the one or more storage objects of the CG1 and to transfer the baseline snapshots to the one or more storage objects of the CG2 [fig. 4; pars. 0054-0064 – “In transitioning to sync or metro replication from async replication, a delta between the consistency group and the last transition cycle base snap set is transferred to a target transition cycle snap set (columns 404 and 408, respectively). The mode transitioning cycle custom functions also include, in transitioning to sync or metro replication from async mode, transferring a delta between the consistency group at the source system and a most recent base snap set from the mode transition cycle to the mode transition cycle snap set at the target system (columns 404 and 408, respectively).”].
Claim 8:
Claim 8, directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above [Chen et al. - fig. 6; pars. 0073-0074].
Claim 14 (as applied to claim 8 above):
Claim 14, directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 15:
Claim 15, directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above [Chen et al. - figs. 1-2; par. 0047].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the limitations of the listed claims in conjunction with the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY T MACKALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Reginald G Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
LARRY T. MACKALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2131
7 February 2026
/LARRY T MACKALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139