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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,411,629, 11,829,629 and 11,169,727. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the patent would anticipate those of the current application.
19/286,828
12,411,629
11,829,629
11,169,727
1. A method comprising:
assigning a virtual volume datastore to a pod including a first storage system and a second
storage system configured for synchronous replication; and
replicating input/output (I/O) operations for a set of virtual volumes from the first storage
system to the second storage system, wherein the set of virtual volumes are accessible to a
virtual machine via the first storage system or the second storage system.
1. A method comprising:
assigning, to a pod that includes one or more management objects, a virtual
volume datastore that includes virtual machine data;
replicating I/O operations from a first storage system to a second storage system
to which the virtual machine data is copied, wherein a path to a copy of the virtual
machine data on the second storage system is created for a virtual machine
coupled to the first storage system, and wherein acknowledgement for a request to
write data to the virtual volume datastore is sent after copies of the virtual
machine data on the first storage system and the second storage system are
updated based on the request.
1. A method comprising:
establishing a virtual volume datastore and assigning the virtual volume datastore
to a pod, the pod comprising a management object, the virtual volume datastore
comprising virtual machine data;
stretching the pod from a first storage system to a second storage system,
including copying the virtual machine data from the first storage system to the
second storage system; and
synchronously replicating access operations of the virtual machine data of the pod
between the first and second storage systems, wherein access operations include
I/O operations and management operations and acknowledgement for a request to
write data to the virtual volume datastore is sent after the virtual machine data
stored on both the first storage system and the virtual machine data stored on the
second storage system has been updated in accordance with the request to write
data.
1. A method comprising:
assigning, for a virtual volume datastore assigned to a management object that
specifies a first storage system to synchronously replicate the virtual volume
datastore, a first protocol endpoint to the virtual volume datastore on the first
storage system;
requesting, responsive to updating the management object to include a second
storage system to synchronously replicate the virtual volume datastore, creation of
a second protocol endpoint to the virtual volume datastore on the second storage
system, wherein each of the first and second protocol endpoints provide separate
active paths between a virtual machine and the virtual volume to allow the virtual
machine to access the datastore on any storage system associated with the
management object, and wherein the virtual machine can perform a multi-path
failover from a first active path to a second active path if the first active paths
becomes unavailable; and
synchronously replicating first access operations on the virtual volume datastore
between storage systems specified by the management object such that second
access operations received at either the first or second protocol endpoints produce
consistent results from the virtual volume datastore.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,411,629, 11,829,629 and 11,169,727 in view of Shetty et al. (US 2017/0154093).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Patents 12,411,629, 11,829,629 and 11,169,727 each individually disclose the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 as discussed above.
The patents do not expressly disclose assigning the virtual volume datastore to the pod includes selecting a synchronous replication policy that identifies the second storage system.
Shetty discloses that a plurality of replication techniques available, and synchronous replication is selected [see paragraphs 4 and 49].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Shetty in the 12,411,629, 11,829,629 and 11,169,727 Patents.
The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve non-disruptive replication [see Shetty, paragraphs 4 and 49].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shetty with Patents 12,411,629, 11,829,629 and 11,169,727 for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the set of virtual volumes are standard volumes differentiated by metadata indicating virtual volume status [see Shetty, paragraph 59; volumes are differentiated by ownership metadata (e.g. second storage node takes over after failure of first storage node)].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination teaches y discloses the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising establishing a protocol endpoint on the second storage system for enabling access to the virtual volume datastore [see Shetty, paragraphs 4 & 62; endpoint established for second storage node].
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, the combination teaches discloses the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the virtual machine accesses the set of virtual volumes through multiple protocol endpoints, one on each of the first storage system and second storage system [see Shetty, paragraphs 4 & 62; endpoints established for first and second storage nodes].
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, the combination teaches discloses the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising automatically failing over access by the virtual machine from the first storage system to the second storage system in response to a path failure [see Shetty, paragraph 59; second storage node takes over after failure of first storage node].
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, the combination teaches discloses the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the virtual volume datastore includes virtual machine data comprising virtual disks, configuration files, or file systems [see Shetty, paragraph 36; volumes store data including file systems].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shetty et al. (US 2017/0154093).
Regarding claim 1, Shetty discloses a method comprising:
assigning a virtual volume datastore to a pod including a first storage system and a second
storage system configured for synchronous replication [see paragraphs 32 and 48; first and second volumes from first and second storage systems are added to a consistency group (pod), and synchronous replication is set for the volumes]; and
replicating input/output (I/O) operations for a set of virtual volumes from the first storage
system to the second storage system, wherein the set of virtual volumes are accessible to a
virtual machine via the first storage system or the second storage system [see paragraphs 31-32 & 37; I/O is synchronously replicated between the first and second volume; hosts may access the volumes, and hosts may be implemented as virtual machines].
Regarding claim 2, Shetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein assigning the virtual volume datastore to the pod includes selecting a synchronous replication policy that identifies the second storage system [see paragraphs 4 & 49; plurality of replication techniques available, synchronous replication is selected].
Regarding claim 3, Shetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of virtual volumes are standard volumes differentiated by metadata indicating virtual volume status [see paragraph 59; volumes are differentiated by ownership metadata (e.g. second storage node takes over after failure of first storage node)].
Regarding claim 4, Shetty discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising establishing a protocol endpoint on the second storage system for enabling access to the virtual volume datastore [see paragraphs 4 & 62; endpoint established for second storage node].
Regarding claim 5, Shetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual machine accesses the set of virtual volumes through multiple protocol endpoints, one on each of the first storage system and second storage system [see paragraphs 4 & 62; endpoints established for first and second storage nodes].
Regarding claim 6, Shetty discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising automatically failing over access by the virtual machine from the first storage system to the second storage system in response to a path failure [see paragraph 59; second storage node takes over after failure of first storage node].
Regarding claim 7, Shetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual volume datastore includes virtual machine data comprising virtual disks, configuration files, or file systems [see paragraph 36; volumes store data including file systems].
Claims 8-20 recite similar claim limitations to those of claim 1-7 and are rejected using the same interpretations and citations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Crable (US 8,898,507) – Generally teaches the concept of volumes in pods, and replicating data among volumes.
Piduri (US 2016/0179437) – Generally teaches replication among volumes of consistency groups.
Atia (US 10,528,374) – Generally teaches volume management by virtual machine affiliation in consistency groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights