DETAILED ACTION
This action responds to Application No. 19/068324, filed 03/03/2025.
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 09/15/2025 and 05/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 11, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/595785 (reference application), which has been allowed but not yet issued. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim
Instant Application
Application No. 18/595785
1
A method comprising: providing a storage pod having a group of storage devices containing a plurality of Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) groups
A method comprising: providing a storage pod having a group of disks containing multiple Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) groups (claim 1)
wherein a […] space associated with the storage pod is accessible to all nodes of a plurality of nodes of a cluster representing a distributed storage system
wherein storage space of the storage pod is accessible concurrently to all nodes of a plurality of nodes of a cluster, wherein the cluster represents a distributed storage system (claim 1)
via their respective dynamically extensible file systems (DEFSs)
one or more dynamically extensible file systems (DEFSs) of the node, wherein ownership of a given set of hone or more AAs of the plurality of AAs is assigned to respective DEFSs of the plurality of nodes (claim 1)
and wherein storage space associated with the group is partitioned into a plurality of allocation areas (AAs), in which a given AA of the plurality of AAs is owned by a given DEFS of a plurality of DEFSs of the cluster; and
and wherein storage space is partitioned into a plurality of allocation areas (AAs) (claim 1)
wherein ownership of a given set of one or more AAs of the plurality of AAs is assigned to respective DEFSs of the plurality of nodes (claim 1)
receiving, by a donor DEFS of a first node of the plurality of nodes, a space balancing request
sending a space request message from the node on behalf of a done DEFS of the one or more DEFSs of the node to a donor DEF of the one or more DEFSs of a second node of the one or more other nodes (claim 2);
indicating (i) a number of AAs to be transferred to a recipient DEFS of a second node of the plurality of nodes
requesting ownership of one or more of the plurality of AAs currently owned by the one or more DEFSs of the one or more other nodes (claim 1);
and (ii) a quality of the AAs to be transferred
requesting ownership of one or more of the plurality of AAs currently owned by the one or more DEFSs (claim 1)
selecting, by the first node, a set of AAs currently owned by the donor DEFS that satisfy the space balancing request; and
a donor DEFS of the one or more DEFSs of a second node (claim 2)
selecting, by the donor DEFS, an AA to donate to the done DEFS (claim 5)
transferring, by the first node, ownership of the set of AAs to recipient DEFS and metadata information associated with the set of AAs.
Sending an AA ownership change message from the second node to the node, wherein the AA ownership change message includes an AA identifier of the selected AA (claim 6)
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected over claim 6 of Application No. 18/595785, for similar reasons to those noted in claim 1 above.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/595785 in view of Hu et al (US 2006/0253856 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Re claim 7, Application No. 18/595785 discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses nodes having respective DEFSs (claim 1).
Hu further discloses that prior to transferring, updating, by the first node, an in-memory data structure that tracks AAs owned by the donor [node] to mark the set of AAs as being in an intermediate state of ownership transfer; and updating, by the first node, a persistent file that tracks the AAs owned by the donor [node] to indicate the set of AAs are no longer owned by the donor [node] (¶ 10-12). Before the transfer is completed (prior to transferring), the donor node releases its locks on the requested AAs, which both represent an intermediate state (where the lock is unowned, and not owned by the recipient node), as well as indicating that the AAs are no longer owned by the donor node. Records associated with the ownership are persistent (¶ 47).
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 storage reallocation of Application No. 18/595785 to allow nodes to request resources using a distributed queue, as in Hu, because Hu suggests that requesting resources using multicast protocols to queues has performance and scalability advantages, and improves upon poor performance of previous lock transfer protocols (¶ 42).
Re claim 9, Application No. 18/595785 and Hu disclose the method of claim 1, and Hu further discloses that the metadata file for the set of AAs when linked into a file system operable on the second node provides the second node with full metadata information about the set of AAs (¶ 10-12). It is noted that the limitation “when linked into a file system […]” is a contingent limitation in a method claim, and as such, is considered to be optional under 35 USC § 2111.04(II), as it may not actually occur. Nevertheless, the transfer of the lock and unique identifier information (metadata) allows the recipient node to have access to (full metadata information about) the data (AAs).
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 Application No. 18/595785 and Hu, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Re claim 10, Application No. 18/595785 and Hu disclose the method of claim 1, and Hu further discloses that the metadata information is part of a metafile, wherein responsive to said selecting and until completion of said transferring is complete, the metadata information is frozen by precluding access to the metafile by the donor DEFS (¶ 10-12). Responsive to a lock being selected for transfer, the lock is released; after the lock is released, access to the lock and unique identifier (metafile) is precluded by the donor node, through the time that the transfer is complete.
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 Application No. 18/595785 and Hu, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/595785 in view of Parab et al (US 2024/0211013 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Re claim 8, Application No. 18/595785 discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses a PVBN space, and nodes having respective DEFSs (claim 1), but do not specifically disclose sending a message which include locations of blocks, or locations of blocks containing further [blocks].
Parab further discloses that transfer of the metadata information includes sending a message to the recipient [node], in which the message includes one or more [blocks] that (i) represent locations of blocks containing metafile data for the set of AAs or (ii) represent locations of blocks containing further [blocks] that represent the locations of the blocks containing metafile data for the set of AAs (¶ 234). The nodes transfer data items (AAs) by broadcasting (from recipient to donor) a list (message) containing a list of block identifiers (blocks representing locations of blocks containing metafile data for the set of AAs).
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 space balancing system of Patel Application No. 18/595785 to maintain a list of data to be transferred, as in Parab, because it would be applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. Application No. 18/595785 discloses transferring allocated data from one node to another, which is ready for the improvement of creating and broadcasting a list of the allocated data to be transferred. Parab discloses a method of creating and broadcasting of a list of allocated data to be transferred, which is applicable for the transferring of Application No. 18/595785. It would have been obvious to incorporate the list of transferred allocated data of Parab into the transferring of Application No. 18/595785, because it would yield the predictable result of allowing multiple locations to be specified for transfer at once.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 2, 6, 12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2, 12, and 17, language “precluding subsequent use, by the first node, of file system metadata associated with the set of AAs by, for each AA of the set of AAs, hole-punching a PVBN within a level-1 (L1) block pointing to the AA” (e.g. claim 2, lines 1-3). This limitation is not sufficiently described in the specification to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. Applicant has not provided adequate support for 1) what is involved in hole-punching a PVBN within a L1 block and 2) the mechanism by which hole-punching the PVBN accomplishes the function of precluding subsequent use.
Claims 6, 15, and 20, language “hole-punching, by the first node, those of the plurality of L0 PVBNs”. This limitation is not sufficiently described in the specification to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. Applicant has not provided adequate support for what it means to hole-punch a plurality of L0 PVBNs;
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, 11, and 16:
Language “a storage pod having a group of storage devices containing a plurality of Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) groups, wherein a global […] (PVBN) space associated with the storage pod is accessible to all nodes of a plurality of nodes of a cluster representing a distributed storage system via their respective […] (DEFSs)” (e.g. claim 1, lines 2-6). This limitation is indefinite, for 2 reasons. First, this limitation includes multiple dependent clauses (e.g. “representing a distributed storage system” and “via a global physical block number (PVBN) space”) which are ambiguously worded and lack clear reference to their respective subjects. For example, “representing a distributed storage system” could refer to 1) the storage pod, 2) all nodes of a plurality of nodes, or 3) a cluster. Similarly, “via their respective […] (DEFSs)” could refer to 1) accessible” or 2 “representing a distributed storage system”. Second, it is unclear whether the “distributed storage system” means that the 1) storage system is distributed across the nodes themselves, 2) the storage pod is a distributed storage system, or 3) the storage pod is comprised of the nodes, and thus constitutes the distributed storage system. If the distributed storage system is distributed across the nodes, and is not the storage pod, then then the “storage pod” would appear to be an extraneous feature that not related to the rest of the invention, as there is no other reference to it in the claims;
Language “the group” (e.g. claim 1, line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the group”, as there is support for both “ a group of storage devices” (e.g. claim 1, line 2) and “(RAID) groups” (line 3). As it is unclear which of these is “the group”, the limitation is indefinite;
Claims 2, 12, and 17, language “precluding subsequent use, by the first node, of file system metadata associated with the set of AAs by, for each AA of the set of AAs, hole-punching a PVBN within a level-1 (L1) block pointing to the AA” (e.g. claim 2, lines 1-3). This limitation is indefinite. As noted above, this limitation is not described in sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. Accordingly, Examiner is unable to determine the intended scope of the invention, and the limitation is accordingly indefinite;
Claims 6, 15, and 20, language “hole-punching, by the first node, those of the plurality of L0 PVBNs”. This limitation is indefinite. As noted above, this limitation is not described in sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. Accordingly, Examiner is unable to determine the intended scope of the invention, and the limitation is accordingly indefinite;
Claim 9, language “the metafile data” (line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon one of claims 1, 11, and 16 above, respectively.
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, 7, 9-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2019/0114117 A1) in view of Li et al (US 2003/0093509 A1), further in view of Hu et al (US 2006/0253856 A1).
Re claim 1, Patel discloses the following:
A method comprising: providing a storage pod having a group of storage devices containing multiple Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) groups (¶ 3). The storage array (storage pod) contains one or more storage volumes comprising one or more groups of storage devices which are organized into one or more (i.e. including “multiple”) RAID groups;
wherein a global physical volume block number (PVBN) space (¶ 41) The aggregate utilizes a PVBN space, which is global for the aggregate, as each aggregate has one PVBN space (¶ 41);
of the storage pod is accessible concurrently to all nodes of a plurality of nodes of a cluster (¶ 19). This limitation is indefinite, as noted above. Examiner interprets it to mean that the storage pod is made up of a cluster of interconnected nodes. The storage may be set up as a cluster of interconnected storage nodes (a plurality of nodes of a cluster representing a distributed storage system). Applicant has not explicitly defined “accessible concurrently to all nodes” in the claims, and the specification merely discloses that “As a result, of creating an distributing the disaggregated storage across a cluster in this manner, all disks and all RAID groups can theoretically to be accessed concurrently by all nodes and the issue discussed with reference to Fig. 5 in which the entirety of any given disk and the entirety of any given RAID group is owned by a single node is avoided” (¶ 116). Accordingly, Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the storage pod is not owned by a single node. In Patel, the storage array (storage pod) is not owned by a single node, as it comprises a cluster of interconnected nodes;
representing a distributed storage system (¶ 19 and 41). An aggregate represents a distributed storage system, as it comprises one or more RAID groups comprising one or more disks (¶ 41), and may comprise a cluster of interconnected nodes (¶ 19); accordingly, the storage system is distributed across these elements;
wherein the storage space associated with the group is partitioned into a plurality of allocation areas (AAs) (¶ 4). The global PVBN space comprises (is partitioned into) blocks (allocation areas).
Patel does not explicitly disclose reallocating resources between nodes, and does not explicitly disclose a dynamically extensible file system.
Li discloses the following:
a plurality of nodes of a cluster representing a distributed storage system (Fig. 1, hosts 12a-z; ¶ 485). The plurality of hosts (nodes) are nodes of a network cluster (Fig. 1), and the cluster represents a storage system which is distributed across multiple disks (¶ 485);
via their respective dynamically extensible file systems (DEFSs) (¶ 20 and 641). Each host (node) contains a respective agent which monitors information about the respective node (¶ 20) and its associated file system, which “the illustrated embodiment dynamically extends” (i.e. it is a dynamically extensible file system) (¶ 641);
wherein storage space associated with the group is partitioned into a plurality of allocation areas (AAs), in which a given AA of the plurality of AAs is owned by a given DEFS of a plurality of DEFSs of the cluster; and (¶ 20-21 and 641). The agents assign (allocate) logical units (AAs) to respective hosts (nodes) (¶ 20-21), and their respective DEFSs (¶ 641);
receiving […] a space balancing request (¶ 289-290 and 641-642). When an agent determines that its host has hit a utilization threshold, it triggers an extension of the file system to include new LUNs (¶ 641-642). The agents for hosts maintain LUN allocation for their respective hosts; the LUNs (allocation areas) may be deallocated from one host and freed up to be reallocated to another during the extension process (¶ 289-290).
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 distributed storage system of Patel to perform resource monitoring, reallocation, and dynamic extension of the file system as in Li, because it would be applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. Patel discloses a storage system distributed over a plurality of nodes, which is ready for the improvement of managing storage reallocation using dynamically extensible file systems. Li discloses dynamically extensible file systems for managing storage reallocation across distributed nodes, which is applicable to the distributed nodes of Patel. It would have been obvious to integrate the dynamically extensible file system resource management of Li into the distributed storage system of Patel, because it would yield the predictable result of ensuring resources are efficiently allocated to the nodes.
Patel and Li do not explicitly disclose the details of how resources are requested from one node to another.
Hu discloses the following:
receiving, by a donor [node] of a first node of the plurality of nodes, a space balancing request indicating (i) a number of AAs to be transferred to a recipient [node] of a second node of the plurality of nodes and (ii) a quality of the AAs to be transferred (¶ 10-12). Each node contains a lock manager, wherein when a (recipient) node wants to request a lock for a resource (storage) to be transferred, it places the request (space balancing request) in a queue of the lock manager, which is replicated across the nodes; accordingly, it is received at a donor node. The request in the queue indicates the resources requested (a number of AAs to be transferred) as well as the node that currently owns the resource (a quality of the AAs to be transferred);
selecting, by the first node, a set of AAs currently owned by the donor [node] that satisfy the space balancing request; and transferring, by the first node, ownership of the set of AAs to the recipient [node] and metadata information associated with the set of AAs (¶ 10-12). The donor node (first node) releases its lock (selecting a set of AAs) to satisfy the request, and allowing the recipient node to acquire the lock, transferring ownership as well as the unique identifier, or “requesting node ID” of the owning node (metadata information).
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 storage reallocation of Patel (combined with Li) to allow nodes to request resources using a distributed queue, as in Hu, because Hu suggests that requesting resources using multicast protocols to queues has performance and scalability advantages, and improves upon poor performance of previous lock transfer protocols (¶ 42).
Re claim 7, Patel, Li, and Hu disclose the method of claim 1, and Li further discloses nodes having respective DEFSs (¶ 20 and 641). See claim 1 above.
Hu further discloses that prior to transferring, updating, by the first node, an in-memory data structure that tracks AAs owned by the donor [node] to mark the set of AAs as being in an intermediate state of ownership transfer; and updating, by the first node, a persistent file that tracks the AAs owned by the donor [node] to indicate the set of AAs are no longer owned by the donor [node] (¶ 10-12). Before the transfer is completed (prior to transferring), the donor node releases its locks on the requested AAs, which both represent an intermediate state (where the lock is unowned, and not owned by the recipient node), as well as indicating that the AAs are no longer owned by the donor node. Records associated with the ownership are persistent (¶ 47).
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 Patel, Li, and Hu, for the reasons noted in claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, Patel, Li, and Hu disclose the method of claim 1, and Hu further discloses that the metadata file for the set of AAs when linked into a file system operable on the second node provides the second node with full metadata information about the set of AAs (¶ 10-12). It is noted that the limitation “when linked into a file system […]” is a contingent limitation in a method claim, and as such, is considered to be optional under 35 USC § 2111.04(II), as it may not actually occur. Nevertheless, the transfer of the lock and unique identifier information (metadata) allows the recipient node to have access to (full metadata information about) the data (AAs).
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 Patel, Li, and Hu, for the reasons noted in claim 1 above.
Re claim 10, Patel, Li, and Hu disclose the method of claim 1, and Hu further discloses that the metadata information is part of a metafile, wherein responsive to said selecting and until completion of said transferring is complete, the metadata information is frozen by precluding access to the metafile by the donor DEFS (¶ 10-12). Responsive to a lock being selected for transfer, the lock is released; after the lock is released, access to the lock and unique identifier (metafile) is precluded by the donor node, through the time that the transfer is complete.
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 Patel, Li, and Hu, for the reasons noted in claim 1 above.
Re claim 11, Patel, Li, and Hu disclose the method of claim 1; accordingly, they also disclose a storage medium storing instructions executing that method, as in claim 11, (See Patel, ¶ 64).
Re claim 16, Patel, Li, and Hu disclose the method of claim 1; accordingly, they also disclose a storage system implementing that method, as in claim 16 (See Patel, ¶ 64).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Li, further in view of Hu, and further in view of Parab et al (US 2024/0211013 A1).
Re claim 8, Patel, Li, and Hu disclose the method of claim 1, and Patel further discloses a PVBN space (¶ 41). See claim 1 above.
Li further discloses nodes having respective DEFSs (¶ 20 and 641). See claim 1 above.
Patel, Li, and Hu do not specifically disclose sending a message which include locations of blocks, or locations of blocks containing further [blocks].
Parab further discloses that transfer of the metadata information includes sending a message to the recipient [node], in which the message includes one or more [blocks] that (i) represent locations of blocks containing metafile data for the set of AAs or (ii) represent locations of blocks containing further [blocks] that represent the locations of the blocks containing metafile data for the set of AAs (¶ 234). The nodes transfer data items (AAs) by broadcasting (from recipient to donor) a list (message) containing a list of block identifiers (blocks representing locations of blocks containing metafile data for the set of AAs).
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 space balancing system of Patel (combined with Li and Hu) to maintain a list of data to be transferred, as in Parab, because it would be applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. Patel (combined with Li and Hu) disclose transferring allocated data from one node to another, which is ready for the improvement of creating and broadcasting a list of the allocated data to be transferred. Parab discloses a method of creating and broadcasting of a list of allocated data to be transferred, which is applicable for the transferring of Patel (combined with Li and Hu). It would have been obvious to incorporate the list of transferred allocated data of Parab into the transferring of Patel (combined with Li and Hu), because it would yield the predictable result of allowing multiple locations to be specified for transfer at once.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thoppil et al (US 2023/0350850 A1) Discloses a PVBN space including L0 and L1 blocks, as well as metadata (¶ 44-45).
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
Prosecution Insights