DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The instant application having Application Number 19/194,679 filed on April 30, 2025 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are presented for examination by the examiner.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support is shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Continuation Statement
Application 19/194,679 filed on 04/30/2025 is a continuation of 18/349,293, now U.S. Patent# 12,348,583. 18/349,293 filed on 07/10/2023 is a continuation of 17/388,670, filed 07/29/2021, now U.S. Patent# 11,716,385. Application 17/388,670 is a Continuation of 16/372,620, filed 04/02/2019, now U.S. Patent # 11,089,105.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated July 29, 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 11, and 19:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites “A system …”; therefore, the claim is a machine.
Claim 11 recites “A method…”, the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process.
Claim 19 recites “A computer readable storage medium”, therefore the claim is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations directed to an abstract idea, including mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language. In particular, the following limitations are directed to an abstract idea:
a cloud-based storage system; and
a processing device, operatively coupled to the cloud-based storage system, configured to:
identify a dataset that is being replicated across a set of storage systems that are external to a cloud environment;
establish a connection to the set of storage systems;
determine, by a storage controller application within the cloud-based storage system, one or more data blocks of the dataset to receive; and
receive and store the one or more data blocks of the dataset at a virtual drive layer of the cloud-based storage system, the virtual drive layer comprising one or more cloud computing instances with block-based local storage.
These limitations are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “storage system”, “processing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the “identifying”, “establishing”, “determining” and “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to determine the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “identifying”, “establishing”, “determining” and “receiving” steps mount to data gathering which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the “identifying”, “establishing”, “determining” and “receiving” step is considered as a mere instruction to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer and/or no more than an idea of a solution or outcome on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the step of “identifying”, “establishing”, “determining” and “receiving” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 11 and 19 have the similar limitations as claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2. The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive a request to read a portion of the dataset; and process the request to read the portion of the dataset locally.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3. The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: detect a disruption in data communications with one or more of the set of storage systems; determine whether the cloud-based storage system should continue to synchronously replicate the dataset; responsive to determining that the cloud-based storage system should continue to synchronously replicate the dataset, keep the dataset on the cloud-based storage system accessible for management and dataset operations; and responsive to determining that the cloud-based storage system should not continue to synchronously replicate the dataset, make the dataset on the cloud-based storage system inaccessible for management and dataset operations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4. The storage system of claim 1, wherein the dataset is synchronously replicated across the set of storage systems.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5. The storage system of claim 1, wherein the dataset is asynchronously replicated across the set of storage systems.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6. The storage system of claim l, wherein the dataset is replicated across the set of storage systems using snapshot-based replication.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7. The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: identify a target storage system for asynchronously receiving the dataset, wherein the target storage system is not one of the set of storage systems across which the dataset is synchronously replicated; identify a portion of the dataset that is not being asynchronously replicated to the target storage system by any of the set of storage systems; and asynchronously replicate, to the target storage system, the portion of the dataset that is not being asynchronously replicated to the target storage system by any of the set of storage systems, wherein two or more storage systems of the set of storage systems collectively replicate the dataset to the target storage system.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8. The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to:2receive, by the storage system, a request to write data to the storage system; store, in solid-state storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data; and store, in object storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9. The storage system of claim 8, wherein to store, in solid-state storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data, the processing device is further configured to:store, in local storage of one or more cloud computing instances, the data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10. The storage system of claim 8, wherein to store, in object storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data, the processing device is further configured to: create one or more equal-sized objects, wherein each equal-sized object includes a distinct chunk of the data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 12-18, although claims 12-18 directed to a method, they are similar in scope to claims 2-10. Similar to claims 2-10, the claims 12-18 do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified.
Regarding claim 20. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the virtual drive layer receives instructions from the storage controller application to perform data management operations on the received one or more data blocks.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0155713 A1, ‘Powell’, hereafter, provided by the IDS) in view of Bk Suhas et al. (US Patent No. 10,534,566 B1, ‘Bk’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1. Powell teaches a storage system comprising: a cloud-based storage system; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the cloud-based storage system (Powell [0027] and Fig. 1 discloses clustered network environment 100 comprises data storage systems 102 and 104, Powell [0042] and Fig. 2 discloses that the node 202 comprises one or more processors 204, a memory 206, a network adapter 210, a cluster access adapter 212, and a storage adapter 214 interconnected by a system bus 242, Powell [0042] discloses that the operating system 208, portions of which are typically resident in the memory 206 and executed by the processing elements, functionally organizes the storage system by, among other things, invoking storage operations in support of a file service implemented by the storage system. Powell [0039], [0055-0057] and Fig. 1 discloses synchronous replication may be implemented for and/or between any type of computing environment, and may be transferrable between physical devices (e.g., node 116, node 118, etc.) and/or a cloud computing environment. Please also see “cloud computing environment (e.g., remote to the node 202 and/or the host device 205)”, Powell [0055] and Fig. 2. The nodes on clustered data storage systems can comprise network or host nodes that are interconnected as a cluster to provide data storage and management services, such as to an enterprise having remote locations, cloud storage, cloud computing environment, Powell [0030], [0039], [0055] and Fig. 1), configured to:
identify a dataset that is being replicated across a set of storage systems that are external to a cloud environment (Powell [0055] and Fig. 2 discloses identifying data such as files, metadata, objects that are stored in the network node that are external to the cloud computing environment. “… synchronous replication may be implemented for the data storage system 200. In an example, a synchronous replication relationship may be established between the node 202 (e.g., a first storage controller) and another node (e.g., a second storage controller) (i.e., external storages external to the cloud environment). In this way, data operations, offloaded operations, error handling operations, SAN control operations, and/or other operations and use cases (e.g., data access, control, and metadata; offloaded and/or error handling operations on various storage containers such as files, SAN Logical Units, or Objects) may be synchronized between the node 202 and the other node (e.g., synchronization at a file or LUN level of granularity). It may be appreciated that synchronous replication may be implemented for and/or between any type of computing environment, and may be transferrable between physical devices (e.g., node 202, host device 205, etc.) and/or a cloud computing environment (i.e., remote to the node 202 and/or the host device 205)”. Please see also [0039], [0056-0059]);
establish a connection to the set of storage systems (synchronous replication may be implemented within the clustered network environment 100. In an example, a synchronous replication relationship may be established between the node 116 (e.g., a first storage controller) and the node 118 (e.g., a second storage controller) … synchronous replication may be implemented for and/or between any type of computing environment, and may be transferrable between physical devices (e.g., node 116, node 118, etc.) and/or a cloud computing environment (i.e., establish a connection to the set of storage systems), Powell [0039], [0055]);
determine, by a storage controller application within the cloud-based storage system, one or more data blocks of the dataset to receive (a data operation (i.e., reading and writing operation on a received data) may be received by the first storage controller, as illustrated in FIG. 4A. FIG. 4B illustrates the data operation being implemented in parallel by the first storage controller and the second storage controller. For example, the data operation may be locally implemented by the first storage controller. The data operation may be replicated to the second storage controller as a replication data operation that is remotely implemented by the second storage controller (i.e., determine, by a storage controller application within the cloud-based storage system, one or more data blocks of the dataset to receive), Powell [0065-0067]); and
Powell does not teach
receive and store the one or more data blocks of the dataset at a virtual drive layer of the cloud-based storage system, the virtual drive layer comprising one or more cloud computing instances with block-based local storage.
However, Bk teaches
receive and store the one or more data blocks of the dataset at a virtual drive layer of the cloud-based storage system, the virtual drive layer comprising one or more cloud computing instances with block-based local storage (The set of storage tiers comprises one or more storage tiers forming at least one storage array configured to store block-based data (i.e., storing data blocks) in association with the respective sets of storage drives of the one or more storage tiers. The set of storage tiers further comprises a storage tier utilizing a cloud infrastructure configured to store object-based data in association with the set of storage drives of the storage tier, Bk, Col 1, lines 34-49. … storage from public/private cloud providers is used to provide a new virtual drive type called a “cloud drive.” This virtual drive forms a new tier (i.e., virtual drive layer) called “cloud tier” in the storage pool facilitating the data to be moved onto the cloud storage (i.e., receive and store the one or more data blocks of the dataset at a virtual drive layer of the cloud-based storage system and the virtual drive layer comprising one or more cloud computing instances with block-based local storage) A given cloud drive is a virtual drive that is composed of the private/public cloud storage capacity that is assigned to the given cloud drive, Bk, Col 4, lines 19-35, Col 6, lines 38-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Powell and Bk before him/her, to modify Powell with the teaching of Bk’s cloud storage tiering using application programming interface. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing Powell an application programming interface is configured to convert block-based data and object-based data for moving data between the one or more storage tiers associated with the storage array and the storage tier associated with the cloud infrastructure (Bk, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2. Powell as modified teaches, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
receiving a request to read a portion of the dataset; and processing the request to read the portion of the dataset locally (storage access request will be satisfied by local node, Powell [0030-0031], [0055]).
Regarding claims 11-12, although claims 11-12 directed to a method, it is similar in scope to claims 1-2. The system steps of claims 1-2 substantially encompass the method recited in claims 11-12. Therefore; claims 11-12 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 1-2 above.
Regarding claim 19. Powell teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processing device (a computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions configured to implement one or more of the techniques presented herein … This computer-readable data 806, such as binary data comprising at least one of a zero or a one, in turn comprises a processor-executable computer instructions 804 configured to operate according to one or more of the principles set forth herein. In some embodiments, the processor-executable computer instructions 804 are configured to perform a method 802, such as at least some of the exemplary method 300 of FIG. 3, for example. In some embodiments, the processor-executable computer instructions 804 are configured to implement a system and method, Powell [0086-0088]), cause the processing device to:
although claim 19 directed to a medium, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The system steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the medium recited in claim 19. Therefore; claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claims 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0155713 A1, ‘Powell’, hereafter) in view of Bk Suhas et al. (US Patent No. 10,534,566 B1, ‘Bk’, hereafter) and further in view of Chen et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0303490 A1, ‘Chen’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 4. Powell and Bk do not teach
wherein the dataset is synchronously replicated across the set of storage systems.
However, Chen teaches
wherein the dataset is synchronously replicated across the set of storage systems (Chen [0047], [0064], [0071-0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Powell, Bk and Chen before him/her, to further modify Powell with the teaching of Chen’s storage system with fast recovery and resumption of previously-terminated synchronous replication. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing Powell a storage system for highly efficient recovery and resumption of a synchronous replication process in the presence of one or more replication failure conditions in a manner that automatically maintains target replica consistency in the presence of potentially dependent mirrored host writes. The need for a time-consuming full data re-synchronization is advantageously avoided. Moreover, such advantages are provided without adversely impacting system performance (Chen, Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding claim 5. Powell as modified teaches, wherein the dataset is asynchronously replicated across the set of storage systems (Chen [0047], [0064]).
Regarding claim 6. Powell as modified teaches, wherein the dataset is replicated across the set of storage systems using snapshot-based replication (Chen [0008], [0069]).
Regarding claim 20. Powell as modified teaches, wherein the virtual drive layer receives instructions from the storage controller application to perform data management operations on the received one or more data blocks (Chen [0022], [0031], [0045], [0050], [0200-0201], [0214-0215]).
Claims 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, Bk and Chen above and further in view of Hirakawa et al. (US 2005/0273565 A1, ‘Hirakawa’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 7. Powell, Bk and Chen do not teach, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
identifying a target storage system for asynchronously receiving the dataset, wherein the target storage system is not one of the of the set of storage systems across which the dataset is synchronously replicated;
identifying a portion of the dataset that is not being asynchronously replicated to the target storage system by any of the set of storage systems; and
asynchronously replicate, to the target storage system, the portion of the dataset that is not being asynchronously replicated to the target storage system by any of the set of storage systems, wherein two or more storage systems of the set of storage systems collectively replicate dataset to the target storage system.
However, Hirakawa teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to:
identifying a target storage system for asynchronously receiving the dataset, wherein the target storage system is not one of the of the set of storage systems across which the dataset is synchronously replicated (in the event of executing updating of replication target data in the storage system, a journal regarding the updating is created and stored into a storage area, and data replication is executed in accordance with the journal. Journals are retained in the individual storage systems, asynchronous and synchronous data replication, Hirakawa [0124-0125]);
identifying a portion of the dataset that is not being asynchronously replicated to the target storage system by any of the set of storage systems (Hirakawa [0124-0125]); and
asynchronously replicate, to the target storage system, the portion of the dataset that is not being asynchronously replicated to the target storage system by any of the set of storage systems, wherein two or more storage systems of the set of storage systems collectively replicate dataset to the target storage system (Hirakawa [0124-0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Powell, Bk, Chen and Hirakawa before him/her, to further modify Powell’s system to not only synchronously but also asynchronously replicate data among the data storage systems. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize incremental backup to asynchronously replicate data among the storage systems.
Regarding claim 15, although claim 15 directed to a method, it is similar in scope to claim 7. The method steps of claim 15 substantially encompass the system recited in claim 7. Therefore; claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 7 above.
Claims 8-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, Bk and Chen above and further in view of Pangal et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0167221 A1, ‘Pangal’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 8. Powell, Bk and Chen do not teach, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
receive, by the storage system, a request to write data to the storage system;
store, in solid-state storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data; and store, in object-storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data.
However, Pangal teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to:
receive, by the storage system, a request to write data to the storage system (write request to cloud storage system, Pangal [0084], [0113-0114] and Fig. 8);
store, in solid-state storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data; and store, in object-storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data (write request to local storage system (i.e., solid state drive (SSD)), Pangal [0063] and [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Powell, Bk, Chen and Pangal before him/her, to further modify Powell with the teaching of Pangal’s system and method for efficiently creating off-site data volume back-ups. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing Powell a system and method for efficiently back-up data volumes. The data back-up system divides data volumes into fingerprinted data slices. Redundant data slices are then removed. Unique fingerprinted data slices are then copied to an internet based storage provider (i.e., cloud storage providers) (Pangal, Abstract and [0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 9. Powell as modified teaches, wherein to store, in solid-state storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data, wherein the processing device is further configured to: store, in local storage of one or more cloud computing instances, the data (Pangal [0126], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10. Powell as modified teaches, wherein to store, in object-storage of the cloud-based storage system, the data, wherein the processing device is further configured to: create one or more equal sized objects, wherein each equal sized object includes a distinct chunk of the data (Pangal [0016-0017], [0102-0103]).
Regarding claims 16-18, the system steps of claims 8-10 substantially encompass the method recited in claims 16-18. Therefore, claims 16-18 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 8-10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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 claim and any intervening claims and overcome any objection and/or any rejection of the claims.
With respect to claim 14 this claim would be allowable by the virtue of their dependency on objected claim 13 respectively.
If the Applicant agreed to the allowable subject matter, Examiner respectfully request the Applicant to make the similar modification to the other independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Patel et al. (US Patent No. 10,936,576 B2) discloses a storage account is replicated across multiple data centers so as to withstand an outage of the storage account. A front end and applications use data stored in the storage accounts to manage resources of a cloud computing system. A client includes an interface used by the front end to access the storage accounts, in addition to an interface that is used by the applications to access the storage accounts. Other features, which ensure that a read operation survives even if a head replica or a tail replica is down, include reading from a head replica instead of from a tail replica, a two phase prepare-commit operation to propagate changes from head to tail replicas, and provisioning a back end repair service if a failure occurs in the middle of the prepare-commit operation.
Surla et al. (US Patent No. 10387673 B2) discloses a system receives a request to store data at a first layer of servers in a cluster, configured to authenticate and authorize the request. The system compresses the data upon authenticating and authorizing the request and encrypts the compressed data at the first layer of servers when encryption is enabled. The system sends the request and the encrypted data to a second layer of servers in the cluster, configured to store data structures used to manage data storage in a third layer of servers in the cluster, and to distribute the request and the encrypted data to the third layer of servers using the data structures. The system stores the encrypted data in the third layer of servers. Encrypting the data at the first layer of servers reduces latency associated with transferring the data between the first, second, and third layers of servers.
Agrawal et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0054475 A1) discloses a load balancing system is provided including: one or more virtual machines implemented in a cloud-based network and including a processor; and a load balancing application implemented in the virtual machines and executed by the processor. The load balancing application is configured such that the processor: receives one or more health messages indicating states of health of network appliances implemented in an appliance layer of the cloud-based network; receives a forwarding packet from a network device for an application server; based on the health messages, determines whether to perform a failover process or select a network appliance; performs a first iteration of a symmetric conversion to route the forwarding packet to the application server via the selected network appliance; receives a return packet from the application server based on the forwarding packet; and performs a second iteration of the symmetric conversion to route the return packet to the network device.
Maybee et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0196831 A1) discloses systems and methods of data storage, and more particularly to providing layering of file system functionality on an object interface. In certain embodiments, file system functionality may be layered on cloud object interfaces to provide cloud-based storage while allowing for functionality expected from a legacy application. For instance, POSIX interfaces and semantics may be layered on cloud-based storage, while providing access to data in a manner consistent with file-based access with data organization in name hierarchies. Various embodiments also may provide for memory mapping of data so that memory map changes are reflected in persistent storage while ensuring consistency between memory map changes and writes. For example, by transforming a ZFS file system disk-based storage into ZFS cloud-based storage, the ZFS file system gains the elastic nature of cloud storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM to 5:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168