DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on March 13, 2025.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Referring to claim 10, the claim is directed to a software. Claim 10 recites “A storage managing program for causing a computer for managing a plurality of volumes”. In view of the Specification, it is not clear whether this system is hardware or software generated because no hardware structure such as processor or memory is disclosed nor has been limited in the claim language. A reasonable interpretation is that the system comprises only software per se, which is non-statutory.
Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
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 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 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holroyd (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20230315750 A1), in view of Ogawa (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20150348054 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holroyd teaches a storage managing system for managing a plurality of volumes such that a placement defining label that defines a region where data relative to each of the volumes is to be placed is assigned to the volume for management, comprising: a processor determining whether the region where data relative to a predetermined one of the volumes is to be placed is appropriate or not, on a basis of the placement defining label assigned to the predetermined volume, and (See Holroyd [0017-0021, 0026-0027] “replication manager 105 may include policy database 118. As described above, data protection or data privacy rules may impose restrictions or other legal obligations on operations that can be performed on a dataset. Replication manager 105 may be configured to store electronic representations of these restrictions in policy database 118… a replication policy may specify that persistent storage of data from a source region (e.g., the EU) is prohibited when that data is replicated to a destination region (e.g., the US)… replication manager 105 may select a replication policy from policy database 118 and apply it to dataset 102… The interface may also present sections of the dataset (e.g., columns) and regions (e.g., a list of countries) [e.g. region] in a selectable manner such that the user can select a column on which the selected restrictions should apply [e.g. a placement defining label that defines a region where data relative to each of the volumes is to be placed]… there may be a table or other data structure in policy database 118 that maintains associations or mappings between a region and one or more replication policies… the replication policy may define that if any data is replicated from region 110 to any other region, persistent storage (e.g., into a persistent storage such as a hard disk storage device or a solid state storage device) of the data should be prevented [Thus, managing a plurality of volumes such that a placement defining label that defines a region where data relative to each of the volumes is to be placed is assigned to the volume for management].” See also Holroyd [0040-0042] “For example, a US user may wish to copy data into persistent storage [e.g. predetermined volume] from a dataset that includes data that was replicated from EU servers and includes personal information of EU citizens. The method also includes determining 410 whether a replication policy restricts execution of the requested operation… If so, the method of FIG. 4 also includes preventing 412 an execution of the operation if the operations requires persistent storage… replication manager 105 may determine that a restriction does not apply to a requested operation… replication manager 105 determines that the requested operation is not restricted by policy and permits 416 an execution of the operation. [Thus, determining whether the region where data relative to a predetermined one of the volumes is to be placed is appropriate or not]”)
Ogawa also teaches determining whether the region where data relative to a predetermined one of the volumes is to be placed is appropriate or not, on a basis of the placement defining label assigned to the predetermined volume in more details. (See Ogawa [0048, 0074-0076] “ In the following descriptions, “information regarding migration” means primarily that it is information which influences analysis of risks in migration of applications or data [e.g. data relative to each volume] between datacenters … First, the risk analysis device 100A acquires information regarding a datacenter migration (step S301). Specifically, the risk analysis device 100A acquires information which specifies an application to be the migration target… and information which specifies a datacenter [e.g. a predetermined one of the volumes] to be the migration destination … a cloud operation management system (not illustrated) may… automatically input such information specifying an application and a migration destination datacenter on the basis a predetermined operation rule… the risk analysis device 100A extracts information regarding the migration from business application information, applicable law information the contract information” See also Ogawa [0059] “the third migration information extraction unit 104 may extract contract information about the migration destination datacenter” See also Ogawa [0070] “Pieces of such applicable law information are stored in the storage unit 101 in a manner to be associated with each area (country) as laws each applied to a datacenter located in the area (country) of the law [e.g. a placement defining label that defines a region where data relative to each of the volumes is to be placed]. FIG. 6 is a table showing an example of applicable law information stored in the storage unit 101.” See also Ogawa [0091] “The process performed by the second migration information extraction unit 103 will be described below, with reference to FIGS. 5 and 6. For example, when “Hong Kong is designated as a migration destination [e.g. a region where data relative to the volume is to be placed] according to the “migration area” in FIG. 5, the second migration information extraction unit 103 refers to the table in FIG. 6 [e.g. a placement defining label that defines a region where data relative to each of the volumes is to be placed] stored in the storage unit 101. Then, the second migration information extraction unit 103 reads out the “Personal Data Ordinance” as the Hong Kong law related to personal information and privacy protection.” See also Ogawa [0128] “The migration risk determination unit 105 thereby determines whether or not the matters regarding businesses and laws included in the first and second migration information are included in the third migration information. If included, the migration risk determination unit 105 determines that… there is no risk in the datacenter migration… If not included, the migration risk determination unit 105 determines that… there is a risk in the datacenter migration because the matters are not included in the contents of the contract. [Thus, determining whether the region where data relative to a predetermined one of the volumes is to be placed is appropriate or not]”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holroyd; which determine whether a restriction does or does not apply to a requested replication operation based on policy, to incorporate the teachings of Ogawa which determines whether there is or there is not a risk in performing a the data migration based on business application information, applicable law information, contracts information and service policy.
One would be motivated to do so to effectively ensure legal and regulatory compliance.
Holroyd further in view of Ogawa, [hereinafter Holroyd-Ogawa] additionally disclose outputting an alert indicating that the region where the data relative to the predetermined volume is to be placed is not appropriate, when determining that the region where the data is to be placed is not appropriate. (See Ogawa [0173-0174] “FIG. 4 is an example of a risk determination result outputted by the risk analysis device 100A… The “APP” in FIG. 4 represents the name of an application being the target of each migration. The “migration origin DC” in FIG. 4 represents the name of a datacenter presently operating the application or data being the target of each migration. The “migration destination DC” in FIG. 4 represents the name of a datacenter to be a migration destination for the application or data being the target of each migration… The “overall risk determination” in FIG. 4 represents an overall determination result on whether or not there is a risk in each datacenter migration [Thus, determining that the region where the data is to be placed is not appropriate] (“Alarm” if present [Thus, outputting an alert indicating that the region where the data relative to the predetermined volume is to be placed is not appropriate], and “OK” if absent).”)
Regarding claim 2, Holroyd-Ogawa teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the placement defining label includes at least one of information regarding legal restrictions that impose limitations on the region where the data relative to the predetermined volume is to be placed. (See Ogawa Fig. 6, [0070] “ FIG. 6 is a table showing an example of applicable law information stored in the storage unit 101. The applicable law information in FIG. 6 is constituted, using the area as a key, in a form of comprising pieces of information each about data protection-related laws which are to be possibly applied to a datacenter in the corresponding area.”
PNG
media_image1.png
525
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the placement defining label includes at least one of information regarding legal restrictions that impose limitations on the region where the data relative to the predetermined volume is to be placed.)
Regarding claim 9, Holroyd-Ogawa teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Holroyd-Ogawa teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base and any intervening claims. After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claims 3 and 8 are not taught by any prior reference found through search. The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “wherein the processor specifies an appropriate region as the region where the data relative to the predetermined volume is to be placed and recommends the specified appropriate region, when determining that the region where the data is to be placed is not appropriate.”, and “wherein the processor accepts a rollback instruction for restoring the data placed in the region to a state at a predetermined point of time from the user, if the region is not appropriate, and restores the data to the state at the predetermined point of time on a basis of the rollback instruction.” which are not found in the prior art of record. Incorporating claims 3 and 8 into independent claims would put claims in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161