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 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,360. 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.
19/302,157
Patent 12,393,360
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request to duplicate a storage volume;
determining a destination storage pool to which the storage volume will be duplicated; and
duplicating the storage volume to the destination storage pool by creating a clone of the storage volume when the destination storage pool supports cloning of the storage
volume, and otherwise copying the storage volume to the destination storage pool.
1. A method for identifying underlying storage pools accessible by computing nodes, the method comprising:
mounting a storage volume to a computing node of the computing nodes, wherein the storage volume is stored in a storage pool of a plurality of underlying storage pools;
determining an identifier for the storage pool; receiving a request to duplicate the storage volume;
determining a second identifier for a second storage pool of the plurality of underlying storage pools to which the storage volume will be duplicated; and
when the second identifier matches the identifier, creating a clone of the storage volume rather than copying the storage volume to the second storage pool.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashutosh et al. (US 2012/0124307).
Regarding claim 1, Ashutosh discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request to duplicate a storage volume; determining a destination storage pool to which the storage volume will be duplicated; and duplicating the storage volume to the destination storage pool by creating a clone of the storage volume when the destination storage pool supports cloning of the storage volume, and otherwise copying the storage volume to the destination storage pool [see paragraphs 43 & 120; request for replication may be satisfied by cloning the data volume if supported, otherwise replication performed by reading the data from one place and writing it to another].
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashutosh in view of Bolen et al. (US 2017/0031774).
Regarrding claim 5, Ashutosh discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ashutosh does not expressly disclose reporting to a data management service when the cloning or copying is complete.
Boeln discloses a snapshot/clone system in which a reply is sent to indicate a completion of the snapshot/clone [see paragraph 78].
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 completion notification of Bolen in the system of Ashutosh.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a system to know when a cloning process is finished and communicate important information regarding the new clone such as volume identifiers [see Bolen, paragraph 78].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bolen with Ashutosh for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashutosh in view of Preston (Recovery Options…).
Regarding claim 6, Ashutosh discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ashutosh does not expressly disclose the clone is created using Redirect-on-Write (ROW) cloning.
Preston discloses data recovery options utilizing copy-on-write (similar to Ashutosh) as well as redirect-on-write [see article].
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 redirect-on-write of Preston in the system of Ashutosh.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce I/O operations modifying a protected block (one write vs two reads and one write), all while eliminating any additional computational overhead associated with reading snapshots [see Preston, article].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Preston with Ashutosh for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 7-9, 16-17, 20-21, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashutosh in view of Dawe et al. (US 2024/0176529).
Regarding claim 7, Ashutosh discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ashutosh does not expressly disclose the request to duplicate the storage volume originates from a pod executing in a computing cluster.
Dawe discloses a pod based snapshot replication storage system which a pod calls to mount a storage volume [see paragraph 29].
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 mounting of Dawe in the system of Ashutosh.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow pods to use such volumes [see Dawe, paragraph 29].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dawe with Ashutosh for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7-9, 16-17, 20-21, 26 and 28.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the request is sent upon the pod requesting to mount the storage volume [see Dawe, paragraph 29; call to mount volume].
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the destination storage pool is virtualized by a storage orchestrator installation for use by the pod [see Dawe, paragraphs 27 & 34; volumes are virtualized for use with containers/pods].
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses a system comprising:
a computing cluster including a plurality of nodes, wherein a storage orchestrator
installation on the plurality of nodes handles mounting of storage volumes to pods
executing on the plurality of nodes [see Dawe, paragraph 24; cluster comprising a plurality of nodes including a master node (storage orchestrator)];
a storage management platform communicatively coupled to the plurality of nodes,
wherein the storage management platform configured to interface with storage
pools [see Matsushita, paragraph 26; master node can act as a storage management platform]; and
a node of the plurality of nodes configured to determine a duplication operation for a
storage volume stored in the storage pools, wherein the duplication operation is a
cloning operation or a copying operation, and instruct the storage management
platform to perform the duplication operation [see Ashutosh, paragraphs 43 & 120; request for replication may be satisfied by cloning the data volume if supported, otherwise replication performed by reading the data from one place and writing it to another].
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the node instructs the storage management platform perform the cloning operation when a resulting duplicate storage volume will be stored in a same storage pool as the storage volume [see Ashutosh, paragraph 42; storage pool may be the same pool].
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses the system of claim 16, comprising:
the node configured to receive a request from a pod executing on the node to mount a
duplicate of the storage volume and determine the duplication operation in response
to the request [see Dawe, paragraph 29; call to mount volume].
Regarding claim 21, the combination discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a storage orchestrator installation on a computing node in a computing cluster,
a request to mount a storage volume from a pod executing on the computing node [see Dawe, paragraph 29; call to mount volume];
determining the storage volume is present in a virtualized storage pool accessible by the
computing node; communicating with a storage management platform via a data management service to request cloning of the storage volume to create a duplicate storage volume; and
mounting the duplicate storage volume to the computing node for access by the pod [see Ashutosh, paragraphs 43 & 120; request for replication may be satisfied by cloning the data volume if supported, otherwise replication performed by reading the data from one place and writing it to another], a volume must be accessible to perform any snapshot/clone].
Regarding claim 26, the combination discloses a system comprising:
a computing node executing a server of a storage orchestrator installation; a data management service communicatively coupled to the server [see Dawe, paragraph 24; cluster comprising a plurality of nodes including a master node (storage orchestrator)]; and
a storage management platform communicatively coupled to the data management service [see Matsushita, paragraph 26; master node can act as a storage management platform],
wherein the server is configured to receive a request from a pod to mount a storage
volume, determine the storage volume is present in a virtualized pool, and request
the storage management platform create a clone of the storage volume via the data
management service [see Ashutosh, paragraphs 43 & 120; request for replication may be satisfied by cloning the data volume if supported, otherwise replication performed by reading the data from one place and writing it to another].
Regarding claim 28, the combination discloses the system of claim 26, comprising:
the server configured to mount the clone to the computing node [see Dawe, paragraph 29; call to mount volume].
Claims 10, 22-24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashutosh in view of Dawe and further in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2024/0231706).
Regarding claim 10, Ashutosh discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ashutosh does not expressly disclose mounting a storage volume to a computing node of a computing cluster, wherein the storage volume is stored in a storage pool.
Dawe discloses a pod based snapshot replication storage system which a pod calls to mount a storage volume [see paragraph 29].
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 mounting of Dawe in the system of Ashutosh.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow pods to use such volumes [see Dawe, paragraph 29].
The combination of Ashutosh and Dawe does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, comprising: determining a source storage pool from a volume identifier associated with the storage.
Matsushita discloses a virtualized storage duplication system [see Fig. 1 & paragraph 246]. Storage volumes are identified using volume and pool identifiers [see paragraph 86].
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 volume identifiers of Matsushita in the system of Ashutosh and Dawe.
The motivation for doing so would have been so that volumes may be properly identified when attempting to clone volumes [see Matsushita, paragraph 96].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsushita and Dawe with Ashutosh for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10, 22-24 and 28.
Regarding claim 22, the combination discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the storage orchestrator installation determines the storage volume is in the virtualized storage pool using a pool identifier of a storage pool storing the storage volume and virtualized in the virtualized storage pool [see Matsushita, paragraph 86; storage volumes are identified using volume and pool identifiers].
Regarding claim 23, the combination discloses the method of claim 22, comprising:
receiving the pool identifier from the data management service [see Matsushita, paragraph 76; virtual volume identifiers used for cloning].
Regarding claim 24, the combination discloses the method of claim 22, comprising:
discovering storage pools in the virtualized storage pool; and generating pool identifiers from information about the storage pools [see Matsushita, paragraph 86; storage volumes are identified using volume and pool identifiers].
Regarding claim 28, the combination discloses the system of claim 26, comprising:
the server is configured to discover storage pools in the virtualized pool and generate pool
identifiers from information about the storage pools [see Matsushita, paragraph 86; storage volumes are identified using volume and pool identifiers].
Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashutosh in view of Dawe and Matsushita and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2019/0114117).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Ashutosh, Dawe and Matsushita discloses 25. The method of claim 21 as discussed above.
The combination does not expressly disclose a driver of the storage orchestrator installation, translating access requests for the duplicate storage volume from the pod into protocol-specific requests for a storage pool of the virtualized storage pool storing the duplicate storage volume.
Patel discloses a system for copying data from parent volumes in a node and cluster based storage system [see paragraphs 19-20]. The file system provides support for multiple protocols and may translate one to another [see paragraphs 29-31]
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 multiple protocols of Patel in the system of Ashutosh, Dawe and Matsushita.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide support for more than one protocol, including DAFS, NFS. CIDS and HTTP protocols [see Patel, paragraph 29].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Patel with Ashutosh, Dawe and Matsushita for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 25 and 30.
Regarding claim 30, the combination discloses the system of claim 26, comprising:
the server configured to translate access requests for the storage volume from the pod into
protocol-specific requests for a storage pool of the virtualized pool storing the clone [see Patel, paragraphs 29-31; multiple protocols may be supported].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowable if the double patenting rejection is properly overcome.
Claims 18-19 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claim limitations directed towards directing a storage management platform to clone the storage volume in the source storage pool when the pool identifiers match, and otherwise directing the storage management platform to copy the storage volume from the source storage pool to the destination storage pool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Edwards (US 2005/0246397) - Discloses techniques for creating a clone of a parent virtual
volume.
Alluboyina (US 2020/03109115) - Discloses a Kubernetes computer system which mounts a
volume prior to cloning it.
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