DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim 1, 3-6, 8-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11892908 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
At least one provenance information from the set of provenance information is treated as not distinctly different from when a claim limitation recites provenance information because “information” can recite singular and plural units of specific data.
Per claim 1,
A method for execution by one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises:
storing a plurality of sets of encoded data slices via a plurality of storage units, wherein each storage unit of the plurality of storage units stores a corresponding subset of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices;
(Claim 1, A method for execution by one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: error encoding a data segment of data in accordance with error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices; storing the set of encoded data slices in a set of storage units of the storage network;)
storing a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, wherein each provenance information is generated in conjunction with executing a corresponding one or more tasks to generate and store a corresponding set of encoded data slices of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices;
(Claim 1, obtaining provenance information associated with the set of encoded data slices, wherein the provenance information is generated as one or more tasks for the error encoding the data segment and the storing the set of encoded data slices are being executed)
identifying an error associated with one of the plurality of storage units based on accessing the plurality of provenance information.
(Claim 1, determining probable error locations associated within the set of storage units based on the provenance information; and scanning the probable error locations to determine whether an error is associated with an encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices)
Per claim 3,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a data identifier.
(Claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes a data identifier associated with the data.)
Per claim 4,
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object.
(Claim 8, The method of claim 7, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object of the data)
Per claim 5,
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object number of a data object.
(Claim 9, The method of claim 7, wherein the data identifier is an object number of a data object of the data)
Per claim 6,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time a corresponding data segment is written.
(Claim 11, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time the data segment is written.)
Per claim 8,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an elapsed time for writing a corresponding set of encoded data slices.
(Claim 13, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes an elapsed time for writing the set of encoded data slices.)
Per claim 9,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an identifier associated with the one of the plurality of storage units.
(Claim 14, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes an identifier associated with a storage unit of the set of storage units.)
Per claim 10,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes integrity information.
(Claim 15, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes integrity information.)
Per claim 11,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an error type of interest for the set of storage units; identifying a search attribute based on the error type of interest, wherein the provenance information is accessed based on the search attribute.
(Claim 19, The method of claim 1 further comprises: determining an error type of interest for the set of storage units; identifying a search attribute based on the error type of interest; and obtaining the provenance information based on the search attribute. Obtaining the provenance information is a type of access)
Per claim 12,
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying an error associated with the one of the plurality of storage units is based on comparing first provenance information of the provenance information to second provenance information of the provenance information, wherein the first provenance information is associated with the one of the plurality of storage units and wherein the second provenance information is associated with another storage unit of the plurality of storage units, and wherein the error associated with one of the plurality of storage units is identified based on the first provenance information comparing unfavorably to the second provenance information.
(Claim 20, The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the probable error locations comprises: comparing first provenance information of the provenance information to second provenance information of the provenance information, wherein the first provenance information is associated with a first storage unit of the set of storage units and the second provenance information is associated with a second storage unit of the set of storage units; when the first provenance information compares unfavorably to the second provenance information, identifying a potential error; and determining a first probable error location of the probable error locations based on the potential error.)
Claims 1, 3-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12386706 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
At least one provenance information from the set of provenance information is treated as not distinctly different from when a claim limitation recites provenance information because “information” can recite singular and plural units of specific data.
Per claim 1,
A method for execution by one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises:
storing a plurality of sets of encoded data slices via a plurality of storage units, wherein each storage unit of the plurality of storage units stores a corresponding subset of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices;
storing a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, wherein each provenance information is generated in conjunction with executing a corresponding one or more tasks to generate and store a corresponding set of encoded data slices of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices;
identifying an error associated with one of the plurality of storage units based on accessing the plurality of provenance information.
(Claim 1, A method for execution by one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: determining probable error locations associated with a set of storage units of the storage network based on provenance information associated with a set of encoded data slices, wherein the provenance information is generated as one or more tasks, for error encoding a data segment of data into the set of encoded data slices and for storing the set of encoded data slices in the storage network, are being executed; scanning the probable error locations to determine an error is associated with an encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices; and rebuilding the encoded data slice to resolve the error, wherein the rebuilt encoded data slice is stored in the storage network.)
(Claim 5, The method of claim 4 further comprises: encoding the additional provenance information into a set of provenance slices; and storing the set of provenance slices in the storage network.)
Per claim 3,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a data identifier.
(Claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes a data identifier associated with the data)
Per claim 4,
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object.
(Claim 7, The method of claim 6, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object of the data.)
Per claim 5,
The method of claim 6, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object of the data.
(Claim 8, The method of claim 6, wherein the data identifier is an object number of a data object of the data.)
Per claim 6,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time a corresponding data segment is written.
(Claim 11, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time the data segment is written.)
Per claim 7,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time a corresponding encoded data slice is written.
(Claim 12, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time the encoded data slice is written.)
Per claim 8,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an elapsed time for writing a corresponding set of encoded data slices.
(Claim 13, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes an elapsed time for writing the set of encoded data slices.)
Per claim 9,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an identifier associated with the one of the plurality of storage units.
(Claim 14, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes an identifier associated with a storage unit of the set of storage units.)
Per claim 10,
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes integrity information.
(Claim 15, The method of claim 1, wherein the provenance information includes integrity information.)
Per claim 11,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an error type of interest for the set of storage units; identifying a search attribute based on the error type of interest, wherein the provenance information is accessed based on the search attribute.
(Claim 16, The method of claim 1 further comprises: determining an error type of interest for the set of storage units; identifying a search attribute based on the error type of interest; and obtaining the provenance information based on the search attribute. Obtaining is a type of access)
Per claim 12,
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying an error associated with the one of the plurality of storage units is based on comparing first provenance information of the provenance information to second provenance information of the provenance information, wherein the first provenance information is associated with the one of the plurality of storage units and wherein the second provenance information is associated with another storage unit of the plurality of storage units, and wherein the error associated with one of the plurality of storage units is identified based on the first provenance information comparing unfavorably to the second provenance information.
(Claim 17, The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the probable error locations comprises: comparing first provenance information of the provenance information to second provenance information of the provenance information, wherein the first provenance information is associated with a first storage unit of the set of storage units and the second provenance information is associated with a second storage unit of the set of storage units; when the first provenance information compares unfavorably to the second provenance information, identifying a potential error; and determining a first probable error location of the probable error locations based on the potential error.)
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.
Claim 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.
Claim 1:
“storing a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, wherein each provenance information is generated in conjunction with executing a corresponding one or more tasks to generate and store a corresponding set of encoded data slices of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices.” The formatting is for emphasis purpose only. Due to how it is written, it is unclear whether the underlined segment of the claim limitation is modifying “each provenance information” or “corresponding one or more tasks.” For the same reason, it is unclear whether the “corresponding set of encoded data slices of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices” is corresponding to the tasks or the provenance information.
“storing a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices.” Formatting is for emphasis purposes only. Unclear whether it means 1) storing the provenance information in the same location as the plurality of sets of encoded data slices or 2) store the plurality of provenance information, which is related to the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, at any storage location.
Claim 8:
“elapsed time for writing a corresponding set of encoded data slices.” This can be interpreted as 1) time taken to write the entire set of encoded data slices, 2) total amount of time allowed to write a corresponding set of encoded data slices. Furthermore, “writing a corresponding set of encoded data slices,” can mean 1) the storing from Claim 1 or 2) any writing action.
Claim 11:
“the set of storage units” lacks antecedent basis. Change to “the plurality of storage units”
Claim 17:
“the set of storage units” lacks antecedent basis. Change to “the plurality of storage units”
Claim 16:
The wording lacks clarity, causing the claim limitation to become indefinite. Change to: “…wherein the per-storage unit data of the corresponding one of the plurality of storage units comparing [compares] unfavorably with the least one other per-storage unit data of the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units is based on the at least one other per-storage unit data of the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units [indicating the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units.] has performed more data writing tasks within a particular time frame than the per-storage unit data of the corresponding one of the plurality of storage units.”
The remaining dependent claims inherits the qualities of the rejected independent claim 1 and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5; 7; 9-15; 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhuse et al (US-20110029809-A1)
Dhuse teaches:
1.
A method for execution by one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises:
storing a plurality of sets of encoded data slices via a plurality of storage units, wherein each storage unit of the plurality of storage units stores a corresponding subset of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices;
(FIG. 3, [0066] the data is encoded into plurality of data slices and distributed and stored at physically diverse storage unit locations in order to improve data segment integrity and security)
storing a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, wherein each provenance information is generated in conjunction with executing a corresponding one or more tasks to generate and store a corresponding set of encoded data slices of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices;
(at least [0084]-[0085] when generating the encoded data slices, the pre-data manipulator adds metadata (e.g., time/date stamping, user information, file type, etc). It is added to the encoded data slices and thus is stored with it)
identifying an error associated with one of the plurality of storage units based on accessing the plurality of provenance information.
([0079] grid module evaluates the received integrity data, which may include naming information and/or of the data slices, to identify any potential errors. Note that the naming information includes at least a portion of a slice name, wherein the slice name includes a source name; the source name being part of a provenance information; [0064] the slice name can also include universal DSN memory addressing routing information (e.g., virtual memory addresses in the DSN memory and user-specific information (e.g., user ID, file name, data block identifier, etc).
2.
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of provenance information is stored in an index structure, and wherein accessing the plurality of provenance information is based on accessing the index structure. ([0107] provenance information is stored in an index structure, in which a slice name can be used s the virtual index to the memory system of each DS storage unit to gain access to the physical location)
3.
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a data identifier. ([0064] the slice name can include user-specific information (e.g., user ID, file name, data block identifier, etc.).
4.
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object ([0064] the slice name can include user-specific information (e.g., user ID, file name, data block identifier, etc. File name teaches the “object name of a data object”).
5.
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object number of a data object. ([0064] the slice name can include user-specific information (e.g., user ID, file name, data block identifier, etc. User ID teaches the “object name of a data object”).
7.
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time a corresponding encoded data slice is written ([0084] the pre-data manipulator adds metadata such as time/date stamping)
9.
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an identifier associated with the one of the plurality of storage units ([0107] slice name is mapped to the physical location)
10.
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes integrity information. ([0134] when data slice is stored, integrity data for each EC data slice is stored also)
11.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an error type of interest for the set of storage units; ([0109] detects the type of error)
identifying a search attribute based on the error type of interest, wherein the provenance information is accessed based on the search attribute.
([0117]-[0118] the error is determined to be either the result of a corrupted slice or because of a temporary error. In the case of a corrupted slice, the corrupted slice is rebuilt from at least a threshold number T of the other X slices of the data segment in order to be restored. If it's not, then a predetermined period of time is set to resolve the error, so the provenance information is not accessed. Therefore, the provenance information is accessed is based on the search attribute of whether or not the search is delayed or not, which is dependent off of the error type)
12.
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying an error associated with the one of the plurality of storage units is based on comparing first provenance information of the provenance information to second provenance information of the provenance information, wherein the first provenance information is associated with the one of the plurality of storage units and wherein the second provenance information is associated with another storage unit of the plurality of storage units, and wherein the error associated with one of the plurality of storage units is identified based on the first provenance information comparing unfavorably to the second provenance information ([0133] “the determination may also be based on a comparison of data slices that should be present in one pillar based on the slice names present in the companion pillars.” Provenance information from both pillars are collected and compared to identify an error)
13.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a plurality of per-storage unit data based on accessing the plurality of provenance information, wherein each per-storage unit data of the plurality of per-storage unit data is generated for a corresponding one of the plurality of storage units, and wherein identifying the error associated with one of the plurality of storage units is based on processing per-storage unit data corresponding to the one of the plurality of storage units. ([0133] “the determination may also be based on a comparison of data slices that should be present in one pillar based on the slice names present in the companion pillars.” Provenance information from both pillars are collected and compared to identify an error)
14.
The method of claim 13, wherein identifying the error associated with the one of the plurality of storage units is based on comparing the per-storage unit data corresponding to the one of the plurality of storage units with at least one other per- storage unit data of at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units. ([0133] “the determination may also be based on a comparison of data slices that should be present in one pillar based on the slice names present in the companion pillars.” Provenance information from both pillars are collected and compared to identify an error)
15.
The method of claim 14, wherein the error associated with the one of the plurality of storage units is identified based on the per-storage unit data of the one of the plurality of storage units comparing unfavorably with at least one other per- storage unit data of the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units. ([0133] “the determination may also be based on a comparison of data slices that should be present in one pillar based on the slice names present in the companion pillars.” Provenance information from both pillars are collected and compared to identify an error)
17.
The method of claim 13, wherein the error associated with the one of the plurality of storage units is identified based on the per-storage unit data of the one of the plurality of storage units indicating the one of the plurality of storage units was offline when potential missing data was written to the set of storage units. ([0133] “the determination may also be based on a comparison of data slices that should be present in one pillar based on the slice names present in the companion pillars.” Provenance information from both pillars are collected and compared to identify an error. The scanning agent may identify a missing data slice; [0113] this can be due to a temporary network connectivity problem)
18.
The method of claim 13, wherein generating each per-storage unit data of the plurality of per-storage unit data includes:
identifying a corresponding subset of the plurality of provenance information relating to the one of the plurality of storage units; and
aggregating values included in the corresponding subset of the plurality of provenance information to generate the each per-storage unit data.
([0133] “For example, the scanning agent 350 may request the DS storage units 36 to provide a list of slice names within an address range. The request may include a starting slice name (DSN virtual address) and a count of slice names to include in the list (count may be zero or greater). The scanning agent 350 receives a slice name list for slices that should be stored within the address range”)
19.
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the error is associated with at least one encoded data slice of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices. ([0133] an error is associated with a missing data slice)
20.
The method of claim 19, further comprising rebuilding the at least one encoded data slice to resolve the error, wherein the rebuilt encoded data slice is stored in the storage network. ([0133] the missing data slice is rebuilt and stored)
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, 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuse in view of Hyun et al (US 20160170871 A1).
8.
Dhuse teaches
The method of claim 1
Dhuse fails to teach
wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an elapsed time for writing a corresponding set of encoded data slices.
However, Hyun teaches
wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an elapsed time for writing a corresponding set of encoded data slices.
([0162] “In one embodiment, the one or more controlled or maintained factors or managed storage media characteristics may include an erase dwell time for the blocks of the non-volatile memory medium 122. As used herein, an “erase dwell time” for a block refers to an elapsed time between erasing the block and writing data to the erased block.” Note: measuring the elapsed time of writing the encoded data slices into a given encoded data slice.)
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dhuse with the teaching of Hyun because blocks with higher erase dwell times may be prone to certain types of error (Hyun, [0162]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuse and Nithrakashyap et al (US 20160124978 A1).
6.
Dhuse teaches
The method of claim 1
Dhuse fails to teach
wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time a corresponding data segment is written
However, Nithrakashyap teaches
wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a timestamp indicating a time a corresponding data segment is written ([0063] “In one embodiment, as each snapshot of a virtual machine is ingested each virtual disk associated with the virtual machine is parsed in order to identify a file system type associated with the virtual disk and to extract metadata (e.g., file system metadata) for each file stored on the virtual disk. The metadata may include information for locating and retrieving each file from the virtual disk. The metadata may also include a name of a file, the size of the file, the last time at which the file was modified, and a content checksum for the file. Each file that has been added, deleted, or modified since a previous snapshot was captured may be determined using the metadata (e.g., by comparing the time at which a file was last modified with a time associated with the previous snapshot). Thus, for every file that has existed within any of the snapshots of the virtual machine, a virtual machine search index may be used to identify when the file was first created (e.g., corresponding with a first version of the file) and at what times the file was modified (e.g., corresponding with subsequent versions of the file). Each version of the file may be mapped to a particular version of the virtual machine that stores that version of the file.”)
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dhuse with the teaching of Nithrakashyap in order to teach saving the timestamp indicating a time a corresponding data segment is written because the information can be used by the search index in order to identify relevant files during a virtual machine version restoration.
16.
Dhuse teaches
The method of claim 15, wherein the per-storage unit data of the corresponding one of the plurality of storage units compares unfavorably with the least one other per- storage unit data of the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units based on the at least one other per- storage unit data of the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units indicating the at least one other corresponding one of the plurality of storage units ([0133] error detection is based on comparing data from one pillar to its companion pillar in order to identify missing data slices)
Dhuse fails to teach
has performed more data writing tasks within a particular time frame than the per-storage unit data of the corresponding one of the plurality of storage units.
However, Nithrakashyap teaches
has performed more data writing tasks within a particular time frame than the per-storage unit data of the corresponding one of the plurality of storage units. ([0063] “Each file that has been added, deleted, or modified since a previous snapshot was captured may be determined using the metadata (e.g., by comparing the time at which a file was last modified with a time associated with the previous snapshot.”)
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two prior art because one way of identifying missing data slices between companion pillar is by monitoring the write operations ([0063] “Thus, for every file that has existed within any of the snapshots of the virtual machine, a virtual machine search index may be used to identify when the file was first created (e.g., corresponding with a first version of the file) and at what times the file was modified (e.g., corresponding with subsequent versions of the file). Each version of the file may be mapped to a particular version of the virtual machine that stores that version of the file”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kazi (US 20170212806 A1) teaches transferring encoded data slices and its status and compare against a threshold, and if it compares unfavorably, rebuilds and store the data slice.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYO LISA RUSIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/K.L.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights