DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the original application filed on 10/27/2021. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which, claims 1 and 11 are presented in independent form.
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 .
Priority
This application is a CON that claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/626,643 filed on 04/04/2024, which has since been issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,235,735, which claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/452,569 filed on 10/27/2021, which has since been issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,960,365, which claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/004,022 filed on 06/08/2018, which has since been issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,176,001.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 02/03/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification submitted on 02/03/2025 is accepted.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,001. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping presented below.
Present Application 19/044,611
Patent No. 11,176,001
Analysis
1. A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to restore a clustered database using a backup image, the clustered database comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising database data from the clustered database;
performing a preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database, the preflight check comprising:
verifying a location of software associated with performing the restore of the clustered database; and
verifying that an instance is running at the clustered database;
determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies a threshold; and
based on determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies the threshold, restoring the clustered database using the backup image.
1. A computerized method of restoring a clustered database with near zero downtime, the method comprising:
1. receiving, by a first computing device, a request to restore a backup image of a failed shared storage device to a specified time, the failed shared storage device being associated with the clustered database, the clustered database including a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes including database data from the failed shared storage device;
1. performing, by the first computing device, a preflight check on a plurality of nodes of the clustered database, the preflight check comprising performing at least one checklist process including at least one of:
1. checking a location of software associated with performing the requested restore,
1. checking whether the clustered database is running;
1. associating each performed checklist process of the at least one checklist process with one of a pass status and a fail status, the pass status indicating that the performed checklist process passed and the fail status indicating that the performed checklist process failed;
1. when each performed process of the at least one checklist process is associated with a pass status, completing the restore
Both method claims.
Both receive a restore request for a clustered database consisting of a plurality of nodes.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation. The threshold could be a simple pass or fail.
Essentially the same limitation.
Independent claim 11 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitations.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein restoring the clustered database comprises:
creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; and
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes.
1. wherein completing the restore comprises:
creating, by the first computing device, at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; and
mapping, by the first computing device, to each of the plurality of nodes an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes,
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 12 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein restoring the clustered database further comprises:
mounting, by each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the respective node as a diskgroup; and
switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup.
2. The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising:
mounting, by each node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the node as a diskgroup; and
switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 13 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes further comprises verifying that the clustered database is running.
1. performing, by the first computing device, a preflight check on a plurality of nodes of the clustered database, the preflight check comprising performing at least one checklist process including at least one of:
checking whether the clustered database is running;
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 14 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise querying at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of at least one disk of the clustered database.
1. querying, by the first computing device, at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of each of at least one disk of the shared storage device
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 15 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of a backup storage device.
17. creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image, wherein the at least one flashcopy comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy;
The system embodiment of the patent does indicate that flashcopy is a point-in-time snapshot copy.
Claim 19 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping presented below.
Present Application 19/044,611
Patent No. 11,960,365
Analysis
1. A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to restore a clustered database using a backup image, the clustered database comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising database data from the clustered database;
performing a preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database, the preflight check comprising:
verifying a location of software associated with performing the restore of the clustered database; and
verifying that an instance is running at the clustered database;
determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies a threshold; and
based on determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies the threshold, restoring the clustered database using the backup image.
1. A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to restore a backup image of a failed shared storage device associated with a clustered database comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising database data from the failed shared storage device;
3. performing a preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database;
4. wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes comprises at least one of:
checking a location of software associated with performing the request;
4. wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes comprises at least one of:
determining that the clustered database is running.
3. determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes passed.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the failed shared storage has been repaired; and
after determining that the failed shared storage has been repaired, migrating the diskgroup data from the diskgroup back to the failed shared storage.
Both method claims.
Both receive a restore request for a clustered database consisting of a plurality of nodes.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation. The threshold could be a simple pass or fail.
If preflight check passes/satisfies a threshold, system restores the clustered database (i.e. migrate data back to storage).
Independent claim 11 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitations.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein restoring the clustered database comprises:
creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; and
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes.
1. creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image;
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes, the diskgroup comprising a plurality of disks;
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 12 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein restoring the clustered database further comprises:
mounting, by each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the respective node as a diskgroup; and
switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
mounting, by each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the respective node as the diskgroup; and
switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 13 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes further comprises verifying that the clustered database is running.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes comprises at least one of:
determining that the clustered database is running.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 14 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise querying at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of at least one disk of the clustered database.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
querying at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of at least one disk of the clustered database;
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 15 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes form a real application cluster (RAC).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes form a real application cluster (RAC).
Same limitation.
Claim 16 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises an incremental backup of a backup storage device.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises an incremental backup of the failed shared storage device.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 17 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of a backup storage device.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the flashcopy comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of the backup image.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 18 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,735. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping presented below.
Present Application 19/044,611
Patent No. 12,235,735
Analysis
1. A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to restore a clustered database using a backup image, the clustered database comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising database data from the clustered database;
performing a preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database, the preflight check comprising:
verifying a location of software associated with performing the restore of the clustered database; and
verifying that an instance is running at the clustered database;
determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies a threshold; and
based on determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies the threshold, restoring the clustered database using the backup image.
1. A computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
1. receiving a request to restore a clustered database from backup storage devices to production storage devices using a backup image, the clustered database comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising database data from the clustered database;
1. performing a preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database;
4. wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes comprises at least one of:
checking a location of software associated with the request;
4. wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes comprises at least one of:
checking whether the clustered database is running.
1. determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies a threshold;
1. based on determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies the threshold, restoring the clustered database from the backup storage devices to the production storage devices using the backup image;
Both method claims.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Same limitation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Independent claim 11 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitations.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein restoring the clustered database comprises:
creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; and
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein restoring the clustered database from the backup storage devices to the production storage devices comprises:
creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; and
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 12 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein restoring the clustered database further comprises:
mounting, by each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the respective node as a diskgroup; and
switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein restoring the clustered database from the backup storage devices to the production storage devices further comprises:
mounting, by each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the respective node as a diskgroup; and
switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 13 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes further comprises verifying that the clustered database is running.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes comprises at least one of:
checking whether the clustered database is running.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 14 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise querying at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of at least one disk of the clustered database.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
querying at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of at least one disk of the clustered database;
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 15 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes form a real application cluster (RAC).
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes form a real application cluster (RAC).
Same limitation.
Claim 16 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises an incremental backup of a backup storage device.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises an incremental backup of the backup storage device.
Same limitation.
Claim 17 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of a backup storage device.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of the backup storage device.
Same limitation.
Claim 18 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
rebalancing database data of the clustered database;
determining a progress of rebalancing the database data; and
providing the progress of rebalancing the database data.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
1. rebalancing the database data evenly across the production storage devices based on the power factor.
9. determining a progress of rebalancing the database data; and
9. providing the progress of rebalancing the database data to a user associated with the request.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claim 19 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise removing backup storage devices after restoring the clustered database.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise removing the backup storage devices after restoring the clustered database.
Same limitation.
Claim 20 is essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaplingat et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0315877, cited in IDS), hereinafter Kaplingat.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kaplingat teaches a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: (Kaplingat, Figure 8 and [0117]-[0118], discloses a processing unit and memory that store executable computer program instructions.)
receiving a request to restore a clustered database using a backup image, the clustered database comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising database data from the clustered database; (Kaplingat, Figs. 1 and 4A and [0086], disclose a SMS component that communicates a request to restore a dataset.)
performing a preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database, the preflight check comprising: (Kaplingat, [0021]), discloses that prior to generating databases, the system layouts may be validated to ensure a proper system configuration.)
verifying a location of software associated with performing the restore of the clustered database; (Kaplingat, [0048], discloses the SCO plugin component may determine whether a database and system layout are supported by the centralized management software based on the database version.) and
verifying that an instance is running at the clustered database; (Kaplingat, [0047]-[0048], discloses providing information indicating whether a valid connection exists between a host device, the storage devices, and databases; and a determination is made as to whether one or more databases are valid and is a candidate for centralized data management.)
determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies a threshold; (Kaplingat, [0047]-[0048], discloses providing information indicating whether a valid connection exists between a host device, the storage devices, and databases, making a determination as to whether one or more databases are valid and is a candidate for centralized data management, and determine whether a database and system layout are supported by the centralized management software based on the database version. Examiner interprets that the threshold could be as simple as a pass or fail (i.e. valid or invalid) determination.) and
based on determining that the preflight check on the plurality of nodes of the clustered database satisfies the threshold, restoring the clustered database using the backup image. (Kaplingat, [0026]-[0027], discloses a discovery operation may return a result and cause the SMS component to enable or allow a user to utilize one or more of the discovered resources to process requests to achieve a desired result including backup operations and restore operations.)
Independent claim 11 recite substantially the same limitations as independent claim 1, and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Independent claim 11 further recites a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations which is taught by Kaplingat, Figure 8 and [0117]-[0118], which discloses a processing unit and memory that store executable computer program instructions.
Regarding claim 4, Kaplingat teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the preflight check on the plurality of nodes further comprises verifying that the clustered database is running. (Kaplingat, [0047]-[0048], discloses providing information indicating whether a valid connection exists between a host device, the storage devices, and databases; and a determination is made as to whether one or more databases are valid and is a candidate for centralized data management.)
Claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, Kaplingat teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise querying at least one of the plurality of nodes to determine an availability status of at least one disk of the clustered database. (Kaplingat, [0041] and [0052], discloses discovering files associated with a dataset including data files, log files, and control files stored on storage devices coupled with one or more host devices. Log files may store log information for the system which may include real-time information about the database system, such as status information, read/write information, maintenance information, event information and so forth.)
Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, Kaplingat teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes form a real application cluster (RAC). (Kaplingat, [0050]-[0051], discloses system layout configuration can be for Oracle® DataGuard® real application clusters (RAC) database.)
Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplingat, in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0203054 , previously cited in IDS), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Kaplingat further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein restoring the clustered database comprises: (Kaplingat, [0026]-[0027], discloses a discovery operation may return a result and cause the SMS component to enable or allow a user to utilize one or more of the discovered resources to process requests to achieve a desired result including backup operations and restore operations.)
However, Kaplingat does not explicitly teach creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; and
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes.
On the other hand, Zhang teaches creating at least one flashcopy associated with the backup image; (Zhang, Fig. 2 and [0028]-[0029], disclose Oracle RAC backup using an ASM diskgroup managed by a copy data storage system (CDS) that creates a FlashCopy for once a RMAN backup completes for the Oracle RAC and updates its management database on CDS for this backup. Also, Zhang, Figs. 7-8 and [0043]-[0045], discloses CDS creates FlashCopy from backup FlashCopy and maps ASM backup flashcopy disks to all RAC nodes.) and
mapping each node of the plurality of nodes to an associated portion of the at least one flashcopy such that the at least one flashcopy is accessible as a diskgroup by each of the plurality of nodes. (Zhang, Figs. 7-8 and [0043]-[0045], discloses CDS creates FlashCopy from backup FlashCopy and maps ASM backup flashcopy disks to all RAC nodes.)
The backup and restore processes of Zhang can be the backup operations and restore operations of Kaplingat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the system management processing system of Kaplingat to incorporate the teachings of flashcopy and mapping processes of Zhang because both address the same field of backup and restore data management systems and by incorporating Zhang into the Kaplingat provides the system management processing system with flashcopies and mappings of nodes associated with the flashcopies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as to provide instant restore of a production database when a disaster strikes by switching a production database to copy data storage where the database backup copy is managed and can also provide data migration from copy data storage where the production database is running from after the disaster, back to production storage once it is repaired with zero or near zero downtime, as taught by Zhang [0004].
Claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Kaplingat, in view of Pawar, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein restoring the clustered database further comprises: mounting, by each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one flashcopy to the respective node as a diskgroup; and switching, by the plurality of nodes, the clustered database to run from the diskgroup. (Zhang, Fig. 8 and [0044]-[0046], discloses CDS maps ASM backup flashcopy disks to all RAC nodes and then mounts ASM diskgroup on all RAC nodes. If mounting of ASM diskgroup is successful, connector issues RMAN Switch to switch production database to ASM diskgroup mounted by CDS.)
Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, Kaplingat teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kaplingat does not seem to explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises an incremental backup of a backup storage device.
On the other hand, Zhang teaches wherein the backup image comprises an incremental backup of a backup storage device. (Zhang, Fig. 4 and [0033]-[0035], discloses performing incremental backups of the ASM RAC.)
The backup and restore processes of Zhang can be the backup operations and restore operations of Kaplingat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the system management processing system of Kaplingat to incorporate the teachings of flashcopy and mapping processes of Zhang because both address the same field of backup and restore data management systems and by incorporating Zhang into the Kaplingat provides the system management processing system with flashcopies and mappings of nodes associated with the flashcopies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as to provide instant restore of a production database when a disaster strikes by switching a production database to copy data storage where the database backup copy is managed and can also provide data migration from copy data storage where the production database is running from after the disaster, back to production storage once it is repaired with zero or near zero downtime, as taught by Zhang [0004].
Claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Kaplingat teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kaplingat does not seem to explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup image comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of a backup storage device.
On the other hand, Zhang teaches wherein the backup image comprises a point-in-time snapshot copy of a backup storage device. (Zhang, [0026], discloses "FlashCopy 1013 refers generally to a point-in-time snapshot copy of a data set or volume." In combination, Zhang, Figs. 7-8 and [0043]-[0045], discloses CDS creates FlashCopy from backup FlashCopy.)
The backup and restore processes of Zhang can be the backup operations and restore operations of Kaplingat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the system management processing system of Kaplingat to incorporate the teachings of flashcopy and mapping processes of Zhang because both address the same field of backup and restore data management systems and by incorporating Zhang into the Kaplingat provides the system management processing system with flashcopies and mappings of nodes associated with the flashcopies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as to provide instant restore of a production database when a disaster strikes by switching a production database to copy data storage where the database backup copy is managed and can also provide data migration from copy data storage where the production database is running from after the disaster, back to production storage once it is repaired with zero or near zero downtime, as taught by Zhang [0004].
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, Kaplingat teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kaplingat does not seem to explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: rebalancing database data of the clustered database; determining a progress of rebalancing the database data; and
providing the progress of rebalancing the database data.
On the other hand, Zhang teaches rebalancing database data of the clustered database; determining a progress of rebalancing the database data; and providing the progress of rebalancing the database data. (Zhang, Fig. 7 and [0043] and [0046], discloses when ASM RAC Shared Storage is repaired, RMAN Rebalance can migrate data from ASM backup disks to ASM RAC Shared Storage. ASM attempts to spread the data evenly across all disks in a diskgroup. A lock file for managing RMAN lifecycle is created on all RAC nodes and denoting the database name in the switch process and status of the switch process. The rebalance status is updated in the lock file on all nodes.)
The backup and restore processes of Zhang can be the backup operations and restore operations of Kaplingat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the system management processing system of Kaplingat to incorporate the teachings of flashcopy and mapping processes of Zhang because both address the same field of backup and restore data management systems and by incorporating Zhang into the Kaplingat provides the system management processing system with flashcopies and mappings of nodes associated with the flashcopies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as to provide instant restore of a production database when a disaster strikes by switching a production database to copy data storage where the database backup copy is managed and can also provide data migration from copy data storage where the production database is running from after the disaster, back to production storage once it is repaired with zero or near zero downtime, as taught by Zhang [0004].
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Kaplingat teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kaplingat does not seem to explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise removing backup storage devices after restoring the clustered database.
On the other hand, Zhang teaches wherein the operations further comprise removing backup storage devices after restoring the clustered database. (Zhang, Fig. 7 and [0043] and [0046], discloses when ASM RAC Shared Storage is repaired, RMAN Rebalance can migrate data from ASM backup disks to ASM RAC Shared Storage. Data migration is started from ASM backup disks to production disks using rebalance and ASM backup disks are dropped from the restore diskgroup. The removal of the disk does not take place until after rebalancing is complete.)
The backup and restore processes of Zhang can be the backup operations and restore operations of Kaplingat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the system management processing system of Kaplingat to incorporate the teachings of flashcopy and mapping processes of Zhang because both address the same field of backup and restore data management systems and by incorporating Zhang into the Kaplingat provides the system management processing system with flashcopies and mappings of nodes associated with the flashcopies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as to provide instant restore of a production database when a disaster strikes by switching a production database to copy data storage where the database backup copy is managed and can also provide data migration from copy data storage where the production database is running from after the disaster, back to production storage once it is repaired with zero or near zero downtime, as taught by Zhang [0004].
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-9785. The examiner can normally be reached MON-TH 8:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571)270-1760. 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.
/Eddy Cheung/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165