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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessary amendments have been made to overcome the rejections; the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 102/103, the arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gladwin et al (US 7574579 B2).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer received on September 4th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Change to: “…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 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.” Formatting is for emphasis purposes only.
. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-5; 7; 9-15; 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuse et al (US-20110029809-A1) in view of Gladwin et al (US 7574579 B2).
Per claim 1, Dhuse teaches:
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)
… wherein each provenance information is generated in conjunction with executing a corresponding one or more tasks, and wherein the corresponding one or more tasks is executed to generate and store a set of encoded data slices of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices; and
(at least [0084]-[0085] when generating the encoded data slices, the pre-data manipulator generates metadata (e.g., time/date stamping, user information, file type, etc). The encoded data slices are then stored)
identifying an error associated with one of the plurality of storage units based on accessing the plurality of provenance information via accessing the at least one provenance information data structure
([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).
However, Dhuse fails to explicitly teach
Storing at least one provenance information data structure separately from storage of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, wherein the at least one provenance information data structure includes a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices
However, Gladwin teaches
Storing at least one provenance information data structure separately from storage of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices, wherein the at least one provenance information data structure includes a plurality of provenance information associated with the plurality of sets of encoded data slices (col 9 lines 45-53: "In accordance with an important aspect of the invention, a metadata management system is used to manage dispersal and storage of information that is dispersed and stored in several storage nodes coupled to a common communication network forming a grid, for example, as discussed above in connection with FIGS. 1-8. In order to enhance the reliability of the information dispersal system, metadata attributes of the transactions on the grid are stored in separate dataspace from the dispersed data." The metadata attributes – i.e, provenance information data structure of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices – is stored in a separate dataspace from the dispersed data – i.e, the plurality of sets of encoded data slices).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art in order to teach saving the metadata attributes in a separate dataspace from the dispersed data because by doing so the system can “enhance the reliability of the information dispersal system” (Gladwin, col 9 lines 45-53).
Per claim 2, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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. (Dhuse [0107] provenance information is stored in an index structure, in which a slice name can be used as the virtual index to the memory system of each DS storage unit to gain access to the physical location)
Per claim 3, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes a data identifier. (Dhuse [0064] the slice name can include user-specific information (e.g., user ID, file name, data block identifier, etc.).
Per claim 4, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object name of a data object (Dhuse [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”).
Per claim 5, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 3, wherein the data identifier is an object number of a data object. (Dhuse [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”).
Per claim 7, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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 (Dhuse [0084] the pre-data manipulator adds metadata such as time/date stamping)
Per claim 9, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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 (Dhuse [0107] slice name is mapped to the physical location)
Per claim 10, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information includes integrity information. (Dhuse [0134] when data slice is stored, integrity data for each EC data slice is stored also)
Per claim 11, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an error type of interest for the plurality of storage units; (Dhuse [0109] detects the type of error) and
identifying a search attribute based on the error type of interest, wherein the provenance information is accessed based on the search attribute.
(Dhuse [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)
Per claim 12, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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 (Dhuse [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)
Per claim 13, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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. (Dhuse [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)
Per claim 14, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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. (Dhuse [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)
Per claim 15, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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. (Dhuse [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)
Per claim 17, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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 plurality of storage units. (Dhuse [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)
Per claim 18, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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.
(Dhuse [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”)
Per claim 19, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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. (Dhuse [0133] an error is associated with a missing data slice)
Per claim 20, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
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. (Dhuse [0133] the missing data slice is rebuilt and stored)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuse in view of Gladwin in view of Hyun et al (US 20160170871 A1).
Per claim 8, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 1
Dhuse in view of Gladwin fails to teach
wherein at least one provenance information of the plurality of provenance information an elapsed time taken 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 in view of Gladwin 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 in view of Gladwin and Nithrakashyap et al (US 20160124978 A1).
Per claim 6, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 1
Dhuse in view of Gladwin 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 in view of Gladwin 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.
Per claim 16, Dhuse in view of Gladwin teaches
The method of claim 15, wherein the per-storage unit data of the corresponding one of the plurality of storage units comparing 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 (Dhuse [0133] error detection is based on comparing data from one pillar to its companion pillar in order to identify missing data slices)
Dhuse in view of Gladwin 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 (Nithrakashyap [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.
Shirley Jr et al (US 10275313 B2) teaches encoding data slices in a dispersed storage network and choosing to store data segments in a way where the segment can be rebuilt by using subset of the stored data segments.
Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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