DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 1/21/2026.
Rejection for claims 1-3 and 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of amendment.
Claim(s) 1-4, & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080301363 A1 by KITAMURA; Manabu et al., in view of US 8320569 B2 by Wideman; Roderick B. et al..
Claim(s) 5 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080301363 A1 by KITAMURA; Manabu et al., in view of US 8320569 B2 by Wideman; Roderick B. et al., further in view of NPL by Kroah-Hartman, G. (2003, July). “udev–A Userspace Implementation of devfs”. In Proc. Linux Symposium (pp. 263-271).
Claim(s) 6-7 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Wideman, in view of Kroah-Hartman and, further in view of StackExchange Discussion (2020) (https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550279/udev-rule-to-trigger-systemd-service; Pgs.2).
Claim(s) 8-9 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Wideman, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20230023416 A1 by Baruch; Offer et al.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.6-10:
PNG
media_image1.png
342
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., replica copies of the same virtual tape file cannot be differentiated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The basis of applicant’s rebuttal against the combination is that the replica copies of the same virtual tape file cannot be differentiated using the combination; however the scope of claim does not detail the replica copies of the same virtual tape file need to be differentiated. Examiner agrees with applicant’s characterization of the combination of Kitamura and Wideman that they do not explicitly teach creating a unique identifier for replica copies of the same virtual tape file and would require updated search.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080301363 A1 by KITAMURA; Manabu et al., in view of US 8320569 B2 by Wideman; Roderick B. et al..
Regarding Claims 1 & 10 (Updated 3/14/2026)
Kitamura teaches (Claim 1) A non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium (Kitamura : [0044]-[0045]) having stored thereon a computer program for locating virtual tape file systems on a virtual tape emulator (Kitamura: [0011]) , the computer program including a set of instructions which, when executed by a computer (Kitamura: [0046] , Fig.1 [0032]-[0039]) , cause the computer to perform a method comprising the steps of/
(Claim 10) A method of locating virtual tape file systems on a virtual tape emulator (Kitamura: Fig.7-9) , comprising the steps of:
receiving a virtual tape file system label assigned to a virtual tape file system by virtual tape emulation software executing on the virtual tape emulator (Kitamura: Fig.9 element 1201 & [0085]; Fig.4 & [0057] "... According to the present embodiment, the identification information assigned to each virtual tape is called a tape number 211, and the identification information assigned to each slot is called a slot number 212....") , the virtual tape file system label including a virtual tape library identifier associated with the virtual tape file system (Kitamura: [0063]-[0065] & Fig.6a; Fig.9 element 1202) ; identifying a world-wide identifier (WWN) of a device used to store the virtual tape file system by a storage system providing storage resources to the virtual tape emulator (Kitamura: [0063]-[0065] Fig.6a element 232 showing WWN; Fig.9 element 1203) ;and creating a unique label for the virtual tape file system for use during a mount process of virtual tape file system contained on a storage device to an operating system of the virtual tape emulator (Kitamura: Fig.8 process including the Fig.9 process where the Fig.6a shows the implementation of the creation of the unique label as concatenation) , the storage device being used by processes operating in the context of the operating system to access the virtual tape file system, the unique label for the virtual tape file system including: the virtual tape library identifier extracted from the virtual tape file system label assigned by the virtual tape emulation software (Kitamura: Fig.6a element 231 & [0065] "... A drive number 231 is an identifier assigned to each virtual tape drive in the virtual tape library....") ;a serial number of the storage system providing storage resources to the virtual tape emulator (Kitamura: Fig.6a element 232 & [0065] "... A WWN 232 and an LUN 233 are a WWN and an LUN, respectively, of the corresponding virtual tape drive....") ; and a device identifier of a storage system device used to store the virtual tape file system by the storage system (Kitamura: Fig.6a element 232 & [0065] "... The example in FIG. 6 indicates a situation where a virtual tape with the tape number 3 is loaded in a virtual tape drive whose drive number 231 is 1...." – here the device identifier is tape number 3 on which virtual tape 1 is loaded; Also see Fig.2 virtual tapes 163 & [0045]).
While Kitamura teaches format of the identifier it does not explicitly teach creating a unique label for the virtual tape file system for use during a mount process of virtual tape file system (Emphasis on bolded information).
Wideman teaches creating a unique label for the virtual tape file system for use during a mount process (Wideman: Fig.3 element 330; Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33) of virtual tape file system (Wideman: Col.2 Lines 62-65 for virtual tape drives) … the virtual tape library identifier extracted from the virtual tape file system label assigned by the virtual tape emulation software (Wideman: Fig.3 element 320; specifically see Col.5 Line 27-35 "... Examples of available information that may be used include, but are not limited to, a tape library's serial number, a World Wide Name (WWN), and a MAC address...." - tape serial number as virtual tape library identifier );a serial number of the storage system providing storage resources to the virtual tape emulator (Wideman: Fig.3 element 320; specifically see Col.5 Line 27-35 "... Examples of available information that may be used include, but are not limited to, a tape library's serial number, a World Wide Name (WWN), and a MAC address...."; WWN as serial number of the storage system) ; and a device identifier of a storage system device used to store the virtual tape file system by the storage system (Wideman: Fig.3 element 320; specifically see Col.5 Line 27-35 "... Examples of available information that may be used include, but are not limited to, a tape library's serial number, a World Wide Name (WWN), and a MAC address...." – MAC number as device identifier) wherein the step of creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system is implemented by a label translation process running in the operating system (Wideman: Col.7 Lines 66—Col.8 Line 31 – label translation device manager is taught as a unique-key-alias-based-on-unique-tape-library-identifier-generator 220 in Fig.2 Col.8 Line 5-7 ."... The apparatus 200 can be implemented using software, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof...." ) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wideman to Kitamura to generate a unique key (Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33) form the data already available in Kitamura (Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library). The motivation to combine would have been that creating a unique is critical to identify one virtual tape library from another and also it provides security by encrypting information (Wideman: Col.1 Lines 6-34). Further motivation to combine would be that Kitamura and Wideman are analogous arts to instant claim which addresses unique key generation for virtual tape library specifically (Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33; abstract ; Kitamura; Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library) .
Regarding Claims 2 & 11
Kitamura & Wideman specifically teaches The non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the step of creating the unique label comprises extracting the serial number of the storage system from the WWN of the storage system device and extracting the device identifier from the WWN of the storage system device (Kitamura: Fig.8 [0081], Fig.6a showing serial number and WWN being extracted for the virtual tape; Fig.9 & [0084]-[0085], showing the process; Wideman: In addition to Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33 mapping see the formats in Col.6 Lines 35-Col.7 Line 7) .
Regarding Claims 3 & 12
Wideman teaches The non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the unique label is created by concatenating the virtual tape library identifier, the serial number of the storage system and the device identifier of the storage system device (Wideman: Fig.3 element 320; at least see Col.5 Line 27-35 "... Examples of available information that may be used include, but are not limited to, a tape library's serial number, a World Wide Name (WWN), and a MAC address...." – MAC number as device identifier) ..
Regarding Claims 4 & 13 (Updated 3/14/2026)
Wideman teaches The non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the step of creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system is implemented by the label translation process running in a device manager of the operating system (Wideman: Col.7 Lines 66—Col.8 Line 31 – label translation device manager is taught as a unique-key-alias-based-on-unique-tape-library-identifier-generator 220 in Fig.2) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 5 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080301363 A1 by KITAMURA; Manabu et al., in view of US 8320569 B2 by Wideman; Roderick B. et al., further in view of NPL by Kroah-Hartman, G. (2003, July). “udev–A Userspace Implementation of devfs”. In Proc. Linux Symposium (pp. 263-271).
Regarding Claims 5 & 14 (Updated 3/14/2026)
Teachings of the Kitamura and Wideman are shown in the parent claim 1.
Kitamura and Wideman do not explicitly teach wherein the steps of receiving the virtual tape file system label, identifying the WWN of the device, and creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system (As mapped in Wideman above), are implemented by a label translation process running in a device manager in a kernel of the operating system (Emphasis on the bolded not being taught).
Motivation to combine Kitamura and Wideman is same as in parent claim.
Kroah-Hartman teaches The non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the steps of receiving the virtual tape file system label, identifying the WWN of the device, and creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system (Kroah-Hartman: Abstract showing naming done with udev kernel level program for virtual devices (like virtual tape drive); §3) , are implemented by the label translation process running in a device manager in a kernel of the operating system (Kroah-Hartman: §3 and Abstract showing Udev as kernel level label or identifier creation).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kroah-Hartman to Wideman and Kitamura to generate a unique key (Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33) form the data already available in Kitamura (Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library) at a kernel level. The motivation to combine would be he Udev kernel level program solves the problem of creating unique identifier when the space to create one is limited (Kroah-Hartman: §2). Further motivation to combine would be that Kroah-Hartman & Kitamura and Wideman are analogous arts to instant claim which addresses unique key/identifier generation (Kroah-Hartman: §3 Udev goals and how namedev, libsysfs and udev work to create the unique identifer; Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33; abstract ; Kitamura; Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 6-7 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Wideman, in view of Kroah-Hartman and, further in view of StackExchange Discussion (2020) (https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550279/udev-rule-to-trigger-systemd-service; Pgs.2)
Regarding Claims 6 & 15 (Updated 3/14/2026)
Teachings of the Kitamura and Wideman are shown in the parent claim 1. Wideman teaches creating the creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system is implemented by a label translation process (as mapped in claim 1). Kroah-Hartman introduced the udev (a kernel level utility) to create such a unique label for the virtual (tape) devices (Kroah-Hartman Abstract) in a Linux based system.
Kroah-Hartman/Wideman/Kitamura do not specifically teach wherein the step of creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system is implemented by the label translation process running in an init system that is part of an operating system core of the operating system.
Kroah-Hartman/Wideman/Kitamura do not specifically teach wherein the step of creating the unique label for the virtual tape file system is implemented by the label translation process running in an init system that is part of an operating system core of the operating system.
StackExchange teaches unique label for the virtual tape file system is implemented by a label translation process running in an init system that is part of an operating system core of the operating system (StackExchange: Whole article , specially the title which shows the udev (a kernel level utility) to create such a unique label ) is used by the systemd (successor of init process) in Linux).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of StackExchange to Kroah-Hartman, Wideman and Kitamura to generate a unique key (Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33) form the data already available in Kitamura (Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library) at a kernel level. The motivation to combine would be he Udev kernel level program solves the problem of creating unique identifier when the space to create one is limited (Kroah-Hartman: §2) which is further used by Linux® based system to use the created identifier. Further motivation to combine would be that Kroah-Hartman & Kitamura and Wideman are analogous arts to instant claim which addresses unique key/identifier generation and it used in Linux based system (StackExchange shows the udev rules used in systemd; Kroah-Hartman: §3 Udev goals and how namedev, libsysfs and udev work to create the unique identifer; Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33; abstract ; Kitamura; Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library).
Regarding Claims 7 & 16
StackExchange teaches wherein the operating system is a Linux operating system and the init system is system (StackExchange: Whole article , specially the title which shows the udev (a kernel level utility) to create such a unique label ) is used by the systemd (successor of init process) in linux).. Motivation to combine as above.
Claim(s) 8-9 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Wideman, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20230023416 A1 by Baruch; Offer et al.
Regarding Claims 8 & 17
Teachings of the Kitamura and Wideman are shown in the parent claim 1.
Kitamura and Wideman do not explicitly teach wherein the virtual tape emulator is configured to emulate tape drives and is configured to receive and output data from and to attached hosts in tape data format.
Motivation to combine Kitamura and Wideman is same as in parent claim.
Baruch teaches The non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the virtual tape emulator is configured to emulate tape drives and is configured to receive and output data from and to attached hosts in tape data format (Baruch: Fig.2 [0038-[0040]) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Baruch to Wideman and Kitamura to send and receive data in particular format to virtual storage (Baruch: [0005]-[0010]) . Further motivation to combine would be that Kroah-Hartman & Kitamura and Wideman are analogous arts to instant claim which addresses unique key/identifier generation to address the communication with virtual tape in specific format (Baruch: Fig.2 [0038-[0040]; Wideman: Col.4 Lines 50-Col.6 Line33; abstract ; Kitamura; Figs.4 & 6a to access the virtual tape library).
Regarding Claims 9 & 18
Baruch: teaches The non-transitory tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the tape data format is AWSTAPE (Baruch: Fig.2 [0038-[0040]). Motivation to combine is as stated above in claim 8.
Conclusion
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.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Saturday, March 14, 2026