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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8-10, 14, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzhou Metabrain Intelligent Technology Co Ltd (CN 110008029 A, hereinafter “Suzhou”) in view of Lin et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0231524 A1, hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzhou teaches:
creating, by a metadata server in a distributed file system and in response to a directory creation operation triggered for the first directory, at least one second director corresponding to the first directory, wherein the first directory is managed by the metadata server, and a hierarchy level of each second directory is less than a hierarchy level of the first directory (Suzhou – see s11: where judging whether the current newly-built directory (i.e. creation operation) is a load balance directory or not by using preset directory setting parameters. Specifically, the directory setting parameters include a directory path and a relative setting level of the load balancing directory, where the directory path of the load balancing directory is used to determine that the directory is used as a reference directory, and the load balancing directory is set, and the relative setting level is used to determine a level setting relative to the reference directory, for example, as shown in fig. 2, the reference directory is a root directory, the level setting may be a third level, the root directory itself may be the first level (i.e. first directory), and then the subdirectory of the subdirectory under the root directory is a third level directory (i.e. second directory, less than a hierarchy level of the first directory), and when a subdirectory of the third level under the root directory is newly created, the third level subdirectory belongs to the load balancing directory. In fig. 2, dir and des are subdirectories of the root directory/, mds represents a metadata server in the metadata server cluster 1, and df represents a data file. S12: is so, the target directory is assigned to the target metadata server in the metadata server cluster (i.e. managed by the metadata server) [p. 4 lines 17-31].)
and performing the following operations on each second directory: selecting, from one or more other metadata servers, another metadata server whose current load value satisfies a preset load condition as a target metadata server, when it is determined, based on a directory category of the first directory and a hierarchy relationship between the first directory and the second directory, that the second directory satisfies a migration condition (Suzhou – it can be understood that the heat degree of each metadata server can also be periodically judged, and when the heat degree of any metadata server (i.e. directory category, see Applicant’s Specification [0070], where a hotspot directory category is recited) is lower than the average heat degree of the metadata server cluster, the newly-built directory can be distributed to the metadata servers with the heat degree lower than the average heat degree (i.e. load condition), so that the metadata servers with low heat degrees are used as target metadata servers, and load balancing is better realized [p. 5 lines 6-8]. The directory setting parameters (i.e. migration condition) include a directory path and a relative setting level of the of the load balancing directory, where the directory path of the load balancing directory is used to determine that the directory is used as a reference directory, and the load balancing directory is set, and the relative setting level is used to determine a level setting relative to the reference directory. [p. 4, lines 19-23].)
and sending directory information of the second directory to the target metadata server, [and locally deleting the directory information of the second directory], to enable the target metadata server to create the second directory based on the received directory information of the second directory, and storing the operation data into the second directory when operation data for the second directory is subsequently received (Suzhou - it should be noted that when the heat of the low-heat metadata server is greater than or equal to the average heat, the metadata server may be continuously allocated in the polling manner, or of course, after a certain number of new directories are allocated to the low-heat metadata server, the polling manner may be resumed, that is, after a preset condition is satisfied, S12 is continuously executed [p. 5 lines 10-12]. S12: the target directory is assigned to the target metadata server in the metadata server cluster [p. 4, line 27]. The directory setting parameters include a directory path and a relative setting level of the of the load balancing directory, where the directory path of the load balancing directory is used to determine that the directory is used as a reference directory, and the load balancing directory is set, and the relative setting level is used to determine a level setting relative to the reference directory. [p. 4, lines 19-23].)
Suzhou does not appear to teach:
and locally deleting the directory information of the second directory
However, Lin teaches:
and locally deleting the directory information of the second directory (Lin – see Fig. 28, which illustrate steps of the namespace redistribution program at an overlay node 0420. In step 2810, the overlay node 0420 obtains namespace access information from the metadata access log. In step 2820, the overlay node 0420 identifies a sub-directory tree that causes the highest metadata access workload, and calculates the total number of metadata accesses on the sub-directory tree. In Step 2830, the overlay node 0420 retrieves all metadata information with the same hash value as the sub-directory from the metadata repository. In step 2840, the overlay node 0420 sends the metadata information and the total number of metadata accesses to the cluster node 0410 which invokes its namespace redistribution program. In step 2850, the overlay node 0420 waits for the notification from the cluster node 0410 to deleted the migrated metadata. If the notification is received, in step 2860, the overlay node 0420 deletes the metadata information of the migrated sub-directory from the metadata repository [0094].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Suzhou and Lin before them, to modify the system of Suzhou with Lin, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a global namespace across heterogenous devices to provide scalability (Lin - [0006]).
Claims 8 and 15 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Suzhou teaches:
wherein determining, based on the directory category of the first directory and the hierarchy relationship between the first directory and the second directory, that the second directory satisfies the migration condition comprises: obtaining the directory category of the first directory, and obtaining a level difference between the hierarchy level of the first directory and the hierarchy level of the second directory; respectively determining load values of corresponding metadata servers based on load information of metadata servers in the distributed file system, when the directory category of the first directory is a hotspot directory category and the level difference is not greater than a hierarchy threshold, the metadata servers comprising the metadata server; and determining that the second directory satisfies the migration condition, when it is determined, based on the obtained load values, that the load value of the metadata server does not satisfy a load condition (Suzhou – it can be understood that the heat degree of each metadata server can also be periodically judged, and when the heat degree of any metadata server (i.e. directory category, see Applicant’s Specification [0070], where a hotspot directory category is recited) is lower than the average heat degree of the metadata server cluster (i.e. , the newly-built directory can be distributed to the metadata servers with the heat degree lower than the average heat degree (i.e. preset load condition), so that the metadata servers with low heat degrees are used as target metadata servers, and load balancing is better realized [p. 5 lines 6-8]. The directory setting parameters (i.e. migration condition) include a directory path and a relative setting level of the of the load balancing directory, where the directory path of the load balancing directory is used to determine that the directory is used as a reference directory, and the load balancing directory is set, and the relative setting level is used to determine a level setting relative to the reference directory. [p. 4, lines 19-23].)
Claims 9 and 16 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 3, Suzhou teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: determining that the directory category of the first directory is the hotspot directory category by: determining, when a service corresponding to the first directory is a hotspot service, that the directory category of the first directory is the hotspot directory category; or determining, when an access popularity of the first directory is greater than a popularity threshold, that the category of the first directory is the hotspot directory category (Suzhou – it can be understood that the heat degree of each metadata server can also be periodically judged, and when the heat degree of any metadata server (i.e. directory category, see Applicant’s Specification [0070], where a hotspot directory category is recited) is lower than the average heat degree of the metadata server cluster (i.e. , the newly-built directory can be distributed to the metadata servers with the heat degree lower than the average heat degree (i.e. preset load condition), so that the metadata servers with low heat degrees are used as target metadata servers, and load balancing is better realized [p. 5 lines 6-8]. The directory setting parameters (i.e. migration condition) include a directory path and a relative setting level of the of the load balancing directory, where the directory path of the load balancing directory is used to determine that the directory is used as a reference directory, and the load balancing directory is set, and the relative setting level is used to determine a level setting relative to the reference directory. [p. 4, lines 19-23].)
Claims 10 and 17 correspond to claim 3 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Suzhou teaches:
wherein load information that is of the other metadata servers and that is obtained by the metadata server is transmitted by the other metadata servers to the metadata server by using a heartbeat mechanism (Suzhou – it can be understood that the heat degree of each metadata server can also be periodically judged (i.e. heartbeat mechanism), and when the heat degree of any metadata server (i.e. directory category, see Applicant’s Specification [0070], where a hotspot directory category is recited) is lower than the average heat degree of the metadata server cluster, the newly-built directory can be distributed to the metadata servers with the heat degree lower than the average heat degree (i.e. load information), so that the metadata servers with low heat degrees are used as target metadata servers, and load balancing is better realized [p. 5 lines 6-8].)
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzhou in view of Lin further in view of Paramasivam (Pub. No. US 2017/0317932 A1, hereinafter “Paramasivam”).
Regarding claim 4, Suzhou modified by Lin does not appear to teach:
wherein the load information comprises at least a load degree, a request processing speed, and a quantity of to-be-processed requests of the metadata server; and the determining load values of corresponding metadata servers based on load information of metadata servers in the distributed file system comprises: performing the following operation on load information of each metadata server: performing weighted summation on the load degree, the request processing speed, and the quantity of the to-be-processed requests of the metadata server, to obtain a load value corresponding to the metadata server, the load degree representing a quantity of requests currently processed by the metadata server, and the load value representing a pressure degree of the metadata server
However, Paramasivam teaches:
wherein the load information comprises at least a load degree, a request processing speed, and a quantity of to-be-processed requests of the metadata server; and the determining load values of corresponding metadata servers based on load information of metadata servers in the distributed file system comprises: performing the following operation on load information of each metadata server: performing weighted summation on the load degree, the request processing speed, and the quantity of the to-be-processed requests of the metadata server, to obtain a load value corresponding to the metadata server, the load degree representing a quantity of requests currently processed by the metadata server, and the load value representing a pressure degree of the metadata server (Paramasivam – the controller can include a load balancer designed and constructed to use a load balancing function and the determined path weights for each of the service chains to select a service chain instance to direct network traffic from the client. The load balancer can distribute workloads across multiple computing resources to optimize resource use, maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of a single resource. In some cases, the load balancing function can cause the load balancer to select the service chain corresponding to the highest weight. The load balancer can apply a load balancing function using the path weights to select a service chain to direct network traffic from the client [0309].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Suzhou, Lin, and Paramasivam before them, to modify the system of Suzhou and Lin with Paramasivam, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to efficiently provide services for instances that are distributed across the cloud environment to efficiently impact overhead, cost, latency, throughput, or load (Lin - [0002]).
Claims 11 and 18 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzhou in view of Lin further in view of Said (Pub. No. US 20140372550 A1, hereinafter “Said”).
Regarding claim 5, Suzhou modified by Lin does not appear to teach:
sorting load values corresponding to other metadata servers in ascending order, to obtain at least one candidate load value based on ranking sequence numbers corresponding to the load values and with reference to a preset sequence number, a ranking sequence number of the at least one candidate load value being less than the preset sequence number; and selecting, as the target metadata server, another metadata server from at least one other corresponding metadata server based on the at least one candidate load value
However, Said teaches:
sorting load values corresponding to other metadata servers in ascending order, to obtain at least one candidate load value based on ranking sequence numbers corresponding to the load values and with reference to a preset sequence number, a ranking sequence number of the at least one candidate load value being less than the preset sequence number; and selecting, as the target metadata server, another metadata server from at least one other corresponding metadata server based on the at least one candidate load value (Said – the multi-tenant environment is enriched with a multi-tenant cache observer component that interacts with a metadata repository application servers, and the load balancer. The load balancer can inform the cache observer about incoming user requests. A list of ranked application servers is provided to the load balancer, which can then merge the information with its respective load balancing algorithm to determine the application server to which the user request is to be dispatched [0016].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Suzhou, Lin, and Said before them, to modify the system of Suzhou and Lin with Said, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide cost savings by reducing resource overhead (Said - [0002]).
Claims 12 and 19 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Suzhou teaches:
wherein the method further comprises selecting another metadata server as the target metadata server by: using, as the target metadata server, another metadata server corresponding to one candidate load value that is in the at least one candidate load value and that satisfies a screening condition; or using, as the target metadata server, another metadata server corresponding to one candidate load value randomly selected from the at least one candidate load value (Suzhou - it should be noted that when the heat of the low-heat metadata server is greater than or equal to the average heat, the metadata server may be continuously allocated in the polling manner, or of course, after a certain number of new directories are allocated to the low-heat metadata server, the polling manner may be resumed, that is, after a preset condition is satisfied, S12 is continuously executed (i.e. another metadata server is used) [p. 5 lines 10-12].)
Claims 13 and 20 correspond to claim 6 and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANJIT P DORAISWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-5759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/RANJIT P DORAISWAMY/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights