DETAILED ACTION
This action responds to Application No. 19/226309, filed 06/03/2025.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 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. The limitation “determining the storage type based on whether or not the data is included in only the one or more snapshots of the storage system” (e.g. claim 1, lines 4-5) lacks clear antecedent basis, as the claims disclose “multiple types of storage including one or more snapshots or one or more volumes” (e.g. claim 1, lines 2-3). Accordingly, the one or more snapshots do not need to exist, as the types of storage could alternatively include one or more volumes, without having any snapshots. If the snapshots are not one of the types of storage, then it is unclear how this determination would be made.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected as being dependent upon one of claims 1 and 11 above, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Examiner notes that the instant application is a continuation of Application No. 18/296612, dated 04/06/2023, which is in turn a continuation of Application No. 17/146968, filed 01/12/2021. It is further noted that Application No. 17/146968 is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 16/266600, dated 02/04/2019, which is in turn a continuation-in-part of Application No. 14/834376, dated 08/24/2015. However, it is noted that Application Nos. 16/266600 and 14/834376 do not disclose the subject matter of “determining a storage type to use for data within a storage system that includes multiple types of storage including one or more snapshots or one or more volumes, further comprising determining the storage type based on whether or not the data is included in only the one or more snapshots of the storage system; and storing the data in a storage device associated with the determined storage type”, as in independent claims 1, 11, and 20, respectively. Accordingly, this subject matter in the instant application does not have priority over Applications 16/266600 and 14/834376, respectively.
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 1-2, 10-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexeev et al (US 2021/0034303 A1).
Re claim 1, Alexeev discloses the following:
determining a storage type to use for data within a storage system that includes multiple types of storage including one or more snapshots or one or more volumes (Fig. 1, storage tier 1, storage tier 2; ¶ 30). The pool of storage devices in the storage system includes a storage tier 1, which is assigned to a production volume, and storage tier 2, which stores a snapshot volume, and is thus a different “type”;
further comprising determining the storage type based on whether or not the data is included in only the one or more snapshots of the storage system; and (Abstract). This limitation is indefinite, as noted above. Examiner interprets this to mean that the determination can either be that the condition that “the data is included in only the one or more snapshots” is true or false. In this instance, the determination of where to store a write request is determined based on a write request being shared between a production VVOL and a snapshot VVOL (i.e. the data is not included in only the one or more snapshots);
storing the data in a storage device associated with the determined storage type (Abstract). Based on the determination, the new write data will be stored in newly allocated space in the production tier (determined storage type).
Alexeev discloses multiple embodiments, and it is unclear whether each element of the claimed invention appears in a single embodiment. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine these elements into a common embodiment, as it would be making the elements integral (MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)).
Re claim 2, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the multiple types of data storage are organized as a plurality of storage tiers, each storage tier having one or more storage devices with a different attribute for data storage access relative to one or more storage devices included in another storage tier (¶ 29). The types of data storage are divided into tiers, each tier containing storages with different attributes, such as different quality of service, performance, and/or costs.
Re claim 10, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses the following:
receiving information at a storage array controller describing, for data stored in the storage system, snapshots associated with data and volumes storing the data (¶ 6). The storage processing circuitry (storage array controller) may access (receive information) the production volume and snapshot volume block maps (information describing, for data stored in the storage system, snapshots associated with data and volumes storing the data);
the storage array controller including a processor, the storage array controller coupled to one or more storage devices of the storage system (Fig. 1, storage processing circuitry 110, pool of storage devices 114; ¶ 27). The storage processing circuitry is coupled to one or more storage devices, and may include processing circuitry (a processor) and/or a controller (storage array controller).
Re claims 11-12 and 19, Alexeev discloses the methods of claims 1-2 and 10 above, respectively; accordingly, it also discloses apparatuses implementing those methods, as in claims 11-12 and 19, respectively (Abstract).
Re claim 20, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 1; accordingly, it also discloses a computer program product including instructions implementing that method, as in claim 20 (¶ 16).
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexeev in view of Rabii et al (US 2010/0281230 A1).
Re claim 3, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 2, but does not specifically disclose read latencies for tiers.
Rabii discloses that the different attribute for data storage access differentiating the plurality of storage tiers is one or more respective read latencies (¶ 3 and 36). The tiered storage contains a first tier of smaller, low-latency storage, and a second tier of larger, higher-latency storage (¶ 36). The latency refers to the access time, or time to retrieve data from a storage device (i.e. read latency) (¶ 3).
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 tiers of Alexeev to differentiate storage tiers by latency, as in Rabii, because Rabii suggests that this would improve performance for hot data in the first tier, and reduce cost for storing cold data on the second tier (¶ 36).
Re claim 5, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 2, but does not specifically disclose that the tiers have different respective storage sizes.
Rabii discloses that the different attribute for data storage access differentiating the plurality of storage tiers is one or more respective storage sizes (¶ 36). The tiered storage contains a first tier of smaller, and a second tier of larger storage.
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 Alexeev and Rabii, for the reasons noted in claim 3 above.
Re claims 13 and 15, Alexeev and Rabii disclose the methods of claims 3 and 5 above, respectively; accordingly, they also disclose apparatuses implementing those methods, as in claims 13 and 15, respectively (Abstract).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexeev in view of Oikawa et al (US 2013/0262749 A1).
Re claim 4, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 2, but does not specifically disclose that an attribute is a read disturb rate.
Oikawa discloses that the different attribute for data storage access differentiating the plurality of storage tiers is one or more respective read disturb rates (claim 4). The tiered storage contains different tiers, which have differing resistance to read disturbs (read disturb rates); data in a tier experiencing read disturb can be moved to a tier which is more resistant to read disturbs (different read disturb rate).
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 tiers of Alexeev to differentiate storage tiers by read disturb rates, as in Oikawa, because Oikawa suggests that this would reduce the occurrence of read disturbs (¶ 57).
Re claim 14, Alexeev and Rabii disclose the method of claim 4 above; accordingly, they also disclose an apparatus implementing that method, as in claim 14 (Abstract).
Claims 6-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexeev in view of Kirac et al (US 8868797 B1).
Re claim 6, Alexeev discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose attributes of the entity to which the data is accessible.
Kirac discloses determining one or more attributes of an entity to which the data is accessible; and wherein determining the storage type to use for the data is further based on the one or more attributes (col. 39, lines 23-55). The storage system determines scores associated with host applications (entities to which data is successful) and I/O performance bandwidth associated with a particular storage tier.
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 tiered storage of Alexeev to determine tiers based on attributes associated with a requesting entity, as in Kirac, because Kirac suggests that this would optimize performance (col. 10, lines 41-67).
Re claim 7, Alexeev and Kirac disclose the method of claim 6, and Kirac further discloses that the entity comprises a host to which the data is accessible (col. 39, lines 23-55). The entity is a host application to which the data is accessible.
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 Alexeev and Kirac, for the reasons noted in claim 6 above.
Re claim 8, Alexeev and Kirac disclose the method of claim 6, and Kirac further discloses that the one or more attributes include a connection speed or a bandwidth of the entity (col. 39, lines 23-55). The attributes include an I/O benefit and performance bandwidth cost (bandwidth) associated with a host application (entity).
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 Alexeev and Kirac, for the reasons noted in claim 6 above.
Re claim 9, Alexeev and Kirac disclose the method of claim 6, and Kirac further comprises that the one or more attributes include one or more data access patterns of the entity (col. 58, lines 24-56). The system may calculate an I/O baseline associated with a host, which may be used for future I/O calculations, including calculating scores.
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 Alexeev and Kirac, for the reasons noted in claim 6 above.
Re claims 16 and 18, Alexeev and Kirac disclose the methods of claims 6-7 above, respectively; accordingly, they also disclose apparatuses implementing those methods, as in claims 16 and 18, respectively (Abstract).
Re claim 17, Alexeev and Kirac disclose the method of claim 16, and Kirac further discloses that the entity comprises an application to which the data is accessible (col. 39, lines 23-55). The entity may be a host application, which is both a host and an application.
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 Alexeev and Kirac, for the reasons noted in claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Davis et al (US 2008/0162843). Discloses multi-tiered snapshots (¶ 13).
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