DETAILED ACTION
This action responds to Application No. 19/034398, filed 01/22/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 and 05/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, as follows:
Claims 1, 9, and 16:
language “whether an active synchronous replication relationship is created” (e.g. claim 1, lines 3-4). This limitation is indefinite, because the tense used (“is created”) leaves ambiguity about whether this is conditional on a state (i.e. a determination of whether it is true that there is an active synchronous replication relationship) or if it is conditional on a specific trigger (i.e. a determination that the relationship is being created right as the determination is made). As Examiner is unable to determine which is the intended meaning, the limitation is indefinite;
when a mediator is not configured for a mediator-less deployment or when an existing mediator is being unconfigured (e.g. claim 1, lines 7-8). This limitation is indefinite, for 3 reasons. First, it is unclear whether the limitation “when a mediator is not configured […]” refers to “when” in the sense of a specific time, or “when” in the sense of being a condition. Furthermore, if it is a condition, it is unclear whether it is a condition for performing the determination, or whether it is a joint condition of the determination itself (i.e. the determination is whether an active synchronous replication relationship is created and also that a mediator is not configured). Second, it is unclear whether the limitation “when a mediator is not configured for a mediator-less deployment or when an existing mediator is being unconfigured” means 1) no mediator exists, resulting in a mediator-less deployment, 2) the mediator is not configured for a mediator-less deployment (i.e. the double negative means that it is configured for a deployment with a mediator), or 3) there is a mediator, but it remains unconfigured. Third, the tense used in the limitation “is being unconfigured” makes it ambiguous as to whether it means 1) there is an unconfigured mediator, or 2) the detection determines that a previously configured mediator is being “unconfigured” (i.e. it is currently being taken offline). As Examiner is unable to determine the intended meanings of these limitations, they are indefinite;
negotiating a primary bias state and setting the primary bias state on a secondary storage cluster of the secondary storage site upon the active synchronous replication relationship being created with no configured mediator or when the existing mediator is unconfigured (11-14). This limitation is indefinite, for 3 reasons. First, it is unclear whether “negotiating a primary bias state and setting the primary bias state on a secondary storage cluster” means that 1) the secondary storage cluster assumes master/primary storage status, or 2) the master/slave (primary/secondary) storage status is managed by the secondary storage cluster, or 3) the master/slave storage status is recorded on the secondary storage cluster. Second, the tense of “being created” is ambiguous as to whether this describes a status (i.e. the relationship exists) or a specific trigger (the relationship is created at the exact time that the negotiating is occurring). Third, the limitation “with no configured mediator or when the existing mediator is unconfigured” is indefinite, for the reasons noted in (ii) above);
Claims 4, 11, and 17, language “the primary bias state on the primary storage cluster” (e.g. claim 4, line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
Claims 6 and 13:
language “each processing instance” (e.g. claim 6, lines 1-2). This limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as there is no prior reference to any “processing instance”, nor is it clear what this refers to;
increments a generation number stored in a replicated database and caches a value of the generation number in memory of each storage cluster (e.g. claim 6, line 2-3). This limitation is ambiguous as to which version of the generation number is stored in each location. For example, “increments a generation number stored in a replicated database” could either mean reading out the generation number from the replicated database, and then incrementing the read-out copy, or it could mean increment the copy that is actually stored in the replicated database. Similarly, “caches a value of the generation number” is ambiguous as to whether “a value of the generation number” is the value of the generation number before, or after, the incrementing;
wherein configuration for the negotiated primary bias state is updated only if the cached value of the generation number matches a generation number of the replicated database during an update (e.g. claim 6, lines 3-5). This limitation is indefinite, for 3 reasons. First, the limitation “configuration for the negotiated primary bias state is updated only if […] is indefinite, as it would appear to apply a further condition to the process of negotiating primary bias state from claims 1 and 9, and the conditions are not mutually exclusive. It is unclear how claims 6 and 13 would function if there is no mediator/an unconfigured mediator, but also there is a mismatch between the generation numbers, as claims 1 and 9 disclose that negotiation would occur, and claims 6 and 13 disclose that it would not. Second, the term “the cached value of the generation number” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as there is a generation number cached in memory of each storage cluster. Similarly, the term “a generation number in the replicated database” has insufficient antecedent basis, as it is unclear which version of the generation number is being referred to. Finally, it is unclear what “during an update” refers to; it could be referring to the negotiated primary bias state being updated, in which case it is unclear how the comparison could be made “during an update” if the update is only performed if the verification is made. Alternatively, it could refer to a different instance of updating, in which case it is unclear what is being referred to;
Claims 7, 14, and 19, language “the primary bias state and a mediator-less failover between the primary and secondary storage sites are mutually exclusive to each other” (e.g. claim 7, lines 1-3). This limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear what it means for the primary bias state and mediator-less failover to be mutually exclusive. The primary bias state can designate either storage site as a primary storage site; if that designation is in the same direction as a failover, it is not mutually exclusive; if that designation is in the opposite direction, then it is mutually exclusive. It is unclear how these two concepts can be made mutually exclusive for all possible primary bias states;
Claims 8, 15, and 20, language “detecting a failover of a third party monitoring solution” (e.g. claim 8, lines 2-3). This limitation is indefinite, is it is unclear how “third party monitoring solution” is different than a “mediator”. The existence of the active synchronous replication relationship (e.g. claim 8, line 4) implies that the system must either be configured to be mediator-less, or must have an unconfigured mediator. Accordingly, it is unclear how a third-party monitoring solution would fail in a system with no mediator or an unconfigured mediator;
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claims above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaushik et al (US 11409622 B1).
Re claim 1, Kaushik discloses the following:
A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processing resources, comprising: (claim 1). The computer-implemented method is performed by one or more processors (processing resources);
detecting, with a primary storage site or a secondary storage site of a multi-site storage system, whether an active synchronous replication relationship is created for bi-directional synchronous replication between a first consistency group (CG1) of one or more storage members of the primary storage site and a second consistency group (CG2) of one or more storage members of the secondary storage site (col. 8, lines 8-17; col. 10, lines 39-58; col. 14, lines 8-29; col. 16, lines 46-55). This limitation is indefinite, as noted above. Examiner interprets it to mean that one of the storage sites detects the presence, or absence, of a synchronous replication relationship. One of the first and second storage clusters (sites) is designated as the authority (col. 8, lines 8-17) and that storage cluster may consult the state machine to detect the state of the synchronous mirror (replication) relationship (i.e. whether an active synchronous replication relationship is created) (col. 14, lines 8-29). It is noted that while the limitation “for bi-directional synchronous replication” is intended use, and is not given patentable weight, Kaushik does disclose specifying a direction of replication, which may be reversed via failover (col. 10, lines 39-58), as well as performing reverse resynchronization (col. 16, lines 46-55).
when a mediator is not configured for a mediator-less deployment or when an existing mediator is being unconfigured (col. 3, line 59 to col. 4, line 14). This limitation is indefinite, as noted above. Examiner interprets it to mean that either 1) no mediator exists, resulting in a mediator-less deployment, 2) the mediator is not configured for a mediator-less deployment (i.e. the double negative means that it is configured for a deployment with a mediator), or 3) there is a mediator, but it remains unconfigured. The system is configured to be able to determine which storage site is the primary site when either connectivity to the mediator is disrupted (an existing mediator is being unconfigured), or no mediator exists (a mediator is not configured for a mediator-less deployment);
with the mediator located remotely from the primary storage site and remotely from the secondary storage site (Fig. 3, mediator 360). The mediator is remote to both storage cluster 310 (primary storage site) and 320 (secondary storage site);
negotiating a primary bias state and setting the primary bias state on a secondary storage cluster of the secondary storage site upon the active synchronous replication relationship being created with no configured mediator or when the existing mediator is unconfigured (col. 11, line 66 to col. 12, line 13). This limitation is indefinite, for the reasons noted above. Examiner interprets it to mean negotiating a master/slave mirror relationship (primary bias state) between the primary site and secondary site in a scenario where there is no mediator, or a mediator is unavailable (unconfigured). Kaushik discloses that the authority storage site (which can either be the primary site or secondary site) acquires a consensus (negotiates) the master/slave mirror relationship status (primary bias state), in a scenario where there is no mediator, or the mediator is unavailable.
While Kaushik discloses the limitations noted above, Kaushik discloses a plurality of embodiments; it is unclear whether every claimed element appears in a single embodiment; nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the embodiments of Kaushik to yield the claimed invention, as it would be merely making the embodiments integral (MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)). Additionally, it is noted that re claim 1 (as well as claims 2-8), the method claims include multiple contingent limitations which are subject to interpretation under MPEP § 2111.04(II); accordingly, these contingent limitations are considered to not be required features, as the conditions requiring them may or may not occur. In the interest of furthering compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the method claims as having similar scope to the corresponding system and computer-readable medium claims; however, Examiner reserves the right to subsequently interpret these claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation allowed under MPEP § 2111.04(II).
Re claim 5, Kaushik discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that setting the primary bias state comprises a first process that is atomic to ensure that only one process executes on the primary storage cluster or the secondary storage cluster at a time, wherein clearing the primary bias state comprises a second process that is atomic to ensure that only one process executes on the primary storage cluster or the secondary storage cluster at a time (Fig. 6; col. 14, lines 8-43). During a transfer of primary/secondary cluster roles, the state machine sets permission for the new primary cluster and clears permission for the new secondary cluster using atomic test-and-set operations.
Re claim 7, Kaushik discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the primary bias state and a mediator-less failover between the primary and secondary storage sites are mutually exclusive to each other (col. 12, Table 1). This limitation is indefinite, as noted above. Examiner interprets it as meaning that mediator-less failover is a different state than at least one primary bias state. Kaushik discloses that there is a separate failover setting (setting 1) in the mediator-less environment (mediator-less failover) relative to other settings for the clusters (states 0, 2, and 3).
Re claims 9, 12, and 14, Kaushik discloses the methods of claims 1, 5, and 7 above, respectively. Accordingly, it also discloses storage systems implementing those methods, as in claims 9, 12, and 14, respectively (see Kaushik, claim 9).
Re claims 16, 18, and 19, Kaushik discloses the methods of claims 1, 5, and 7 above, respectively. Accordingly, it also discloses computer-readable storage media storing instructions implementing those methods, as in claims 16, 18, and 19, respectively (see Kaushik, claim 17).
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaushik in view of Coatney et al (US 2014/0047263 A1).
Re claim 2, Kaushik discloses the method of claim 1; furthermore, as noted in claim 1 above, the limitations of claim 2 are contingent limitations, and are thus treated as optional under MPEP § 2111.04(II). Nevertheless, in the interest of furthering compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted claim 2 as having similar scope to claim 10.
Kaushik discloses that multiple clusters contain a “replicated database” (Fig. 5, RDB 512a and 512b); however, it is not explicitly stated whether the state machine (primary bias state) is set on one cluster based on a confirmation on another cluster.
Coatney discloses: determining whether a primary storage cluster of the primary storage side receives a confirmation of the secondary storage cluster setting the primary bias state; and setting the primary bias state on the primary storage cluster when the primary storage cluster receives the confirmation (Fig. 4A, replicated cluster configuration data 411B). Each cluster replicates its configuration data (primary bias site) to another cluster in the pair; accordingly, when a cluster (secondary storage cluster) updates its configuration data, it pushes the changes to the other cluster (primary storage cluster); this serves as a confirmation of the secondary storage cluster updating the configuration data (setting the primary bias state), and causes the other cluster (primary storage cluster) to store that replicated configuration data (setting the primary bias state).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the replicated configuration database of Kaushik to be replicated to a secondary storage cluster, as in Coatney, because Coatney suggests that replicating configuration information would provide synchronous local and cross-site failover in the event of a node failure or a cluster failure, which would help to overcome data loss and/or consistency issues (¶ 37).
Re claim 3, Kaushik discloses the method of claim 1, but does not exclusively disclose waiting for a conformation or receiving a rejection.
Coatney discloses waiting for a confirmation of the secondary storage cluster setting a primary bias state or receiving a rejection of the primary bias state if the mediator is configured and communicatively reachable from the secondary storage cluster (Fig. 4A; ¶ 93). The other cluster (primary cluster) waits for a pushed update to configuration data (confirmation of the secondary storage cluster setting a primary bias state). It is noted that because the language “or” is used, Kaushik and Coatney need only teach one of the limitations of the claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Kaushik and Coatney, for the reasons noted in claim 2 above.
Re claim 10, Kaushik and Coatney disclose the method of claim 2 above. Accordingly, they also disclose a storage system implementing that method, as in claim 10 (see Kaushik, claim 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nazari et al (US 2023/0104473 A1). Discloses utilizing generation numbers is storage mirroring systems (¶ 40);
Bhargava et al (US 2022/0318104 A1). Discloses 3-way quorum in a mirroring device using a mediator (¶ 17).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132