DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
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 § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1, 3 – 11 and 13 - 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: receive, via a network interface, a first object request to replicate an object stored in an on-premises object store to a target cloud object store, wherein the first object request is in accordance with a native protocol of the on-premises object store; select the target cloud object store from a plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores, wherein each of the plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores is hosted by a different cloud provider and has a unique application programming interface (API); translate, by a translation agent, the first object request to a second object request to replicate the object in the target cloud object store, and wherein the second object request is in accordance with a second protocol of the target cloud object store; and send the second object request via the network interface to the target cloud object store.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitations are “select the target cloud object store …” and “translate … the first object request to a second object request to replicate the object … wherein the second object request is in accordance with the native protocol of the target cloud object store” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “receive … a first object request to replicate an object stored in an on-premises object store to a target cloud object store, wherein the first object request is in accordance with a first protocol of the on-premises object store” and “send the second object request … to the target cloud object store” are considered as extra-activity solutions for gathering information which are insignificant and outputting information regarding the events is merely an applied application and insignificantly amounts to the judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directed to an abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
That is, other than reciting “an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory …” and “via a network interface …” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind such that the “select the target cloud object store …” and “translate … the first object request to a second object request to replicate the object … wherein the second object request is in accordance with the native protocol of the target cloud object store” limitations are mental processes under Prong I of step 2A. Selecting a target cloud object store and translating the first object request to a second object request as described in the specification can be performed as a manual process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the identifying and updating steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Additionally, the steps of “receive … a first object request to replicate an object stored in an on-premises object store to a target cloud object store, wherein the first object request is in accordance with a first protocol of the on-premises object store” and “send the second object request … to the target cloud object store” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1.
As per claims 3 and 13, wherein the target cloud object store is selected from a plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores having different application programming interfaces (APIs) and wherein the second object request is an API call to an API unique to the target cloud object store (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 4 and 14, select the target cloud object store based on a configuration (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 5 and 15, receive, from the target cloud object store, an event indicating that the object has been updated in the target cloud object store (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 6 and 16, invoke a callback to the target cloud object store to retrieve the updated object; and store the updated object in the on-premises object store (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 7 and 17, subscribe to a message broker of the target cloud object store; and receive the event based on being subscribed to the message broker (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claim 8 and 18, translate a first identifier of an object in the first object request to a second identifier in the second object request, wherein the first identifier is a version identifier or an upload identifier in accordance with a first protocol and the second identifier is in accordance with a second protocol (abstract idea under mental process under Prong I step 2A).
As per claim 9 and 19, wherein the first identifier is a first version identifier and the second identifier is a second version identifier (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claim 10 and 20, wherein the first identifier is a first upload identifier and the second identifier is a second upload identifier (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallamalli et al. (U.S. Patent 11,263,032) (Nallamalli hereinafter) in view of Maybee et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0196832) (Maybee hereinafter) and Ando (U.S. Publication 2018/0176417) (Ando hereinafter).
9. As per claim 1, Nallamalli teaches an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: select the target cloud object store from a plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores, [“Server 206 generally represents any type or form of computing device that is capable of performing method 300 of FIG. 3, as discussed further below, or facilitating the performance of this method. In one illustrative example, server 206 may correspond to a server of a cloud storage vendor. Additional examples of server 206 include, without limitation, storage servers, database servers, application servers, and/or web servers configured to run certain software applications and/or provide various storage, database, and/or web services. Although illustrated as a single entity in FIG. 2, server 206 may include and/or represent a plurality of servers that work and/or operate in conjunction with one another,” col. 5, lines 47 – 59]; and wherein the second object request is in accordance with the native protocol of the target cloud object store [“Matching the sizes of the objects created within the cloud storage according to principles of object storage to the size of an emulated block storage device may enable the corresponding system, such as system 100 or 200 (and the corresponding translation service) to emulate the local block storage device using the cloud storage, with its objects maintained according to principles of object storage, as a backend. Moreover, the disclosed subject matter may, in general, achieve the simulation by translating commands that are formatted according to a protocol for the local block storage device into one or more corresponding commands that are formatted according to a protocol for the cloud storage, which is originally configured according to the principles of object storage,” col. 8, lines 40 – 54; cloud storage protocol mapped to native protocol; “the objects are labeled with reference to the name of the volume (i.e., “Vol2") and also an incrementing number that increments to identify different objects within the volume. Accordingly, the different objects are labeled “Vo12_0,” “Vo12_1,” “Vol2_2,” and “Vol2_n<’ etc … the translation service references objects in terms of both: (i) a unique number assigned to each respective object and (ii) an incrementing number assigned to each respective object that increments from object to object. An example of the incrementing number is shown in FIG. 4, as further discussed above. Additionally, in some examples, the unique number assigned to each respective object may include at least one of a globally unique identifier and/or a timestamp,” col 10, lines 25 – 39; object labelling suggests pre-stored mapping of identifiers used in translation, unique number mapped to version identifier]; and
send the second object request via the network interface to the target cloud object store [“translation module 108 may first retrieve all of the data within the specified object, as part of executing the write command (e.g., due to the fact that the original command references less than the entirety of the object). As part of requesting the entirety of the data within the specified object, translation module 108 may check whether that specified object already exists … if the specified object does not already exist, then translation module 108 may first create a buffer having the same size as the block/object size (e.g., in this example 1 MB). Then translation module 108 may write the data specified by the original command to the portion of the buffer specified by the length and offset of the original command,” col. 12, line 59 – col. 13, line 11].
Nallamalli does not explicitly disclose but Maybee discloses receive, via a network interface, a first object request replicate an object stored in an on-premises object store to a target cloud object store, wherein the first object request is in accordance with a native protocol of the on-premises object store; and wherein each of the plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores is hosted by a different cloud provider [“because such migrations may be performed by mirror the same tree hierarchy of logical data blocks that includes both file data and metadata (e.g., in contrast to simple file-by-file migration), it may be assured that the file system data may be migrated between different cloud providers without losing any file system data or attributes. That is, even if the different cloud object stores 404a, and 404b support different native sets of attributes for the data objects stored therein, the organization, storage, and migration of the file system data as a tree hierarchy of logical data blocks including both blocks having file data and/or separate corresponding metadata, may assure that migration may be performed between the different cloud object stores 404a, and 404b without losing or altering any of the file data or corresponding metadata during the migration/replication process” ¶ 0189]; and
translate, by a translation agent, the first object request to a second object request to replicate the object in the cloud object store [“a mirror VDEV 1402 may coordinate a cloud data migration and/or replication process by initiating the retrieval of the particular data objects within a first cloud object store 404a storing a logical tree hierarchy, followed by initiating the creation and writing of an identical set of data objects on a second cloud object store 404b, thereby storing an identical instance of the logical tree hierarchy,” ¶ 0199].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nallamalli and Maybee available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Nallamalli to include the capability of adapting objects to heterogeneous storage targets as taught by Maybee, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by utilizing cloud storage capabilities for storing and accessing translated objects.
Nallamalli and Maybee do not explicitly discloses but Ando discloses a cloud provider having a unique application programming interface (API) [“The delivery is performed by calling the unique API unique to the cloud storage 40 at the delivery destination,” ¶ 0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Nallamalli and Maybee to include the capability of accessing cloud storage via unique APIs as taught by Ando, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system operability by enhancing specificity of storage access mechanisms.
8. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10 – 11, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando in further view of Yammine et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0249331) (Yammine hereinafter).
11. As per claim 4, Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando do not explicitly disclose but Yammine discloses wherein the memory comprises the programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: select the target cloud object store based on a configuration [“The above example illustrations refer to size of data being written or size of an object being created to select from multiple custom implementations of a backend target protocol. However, the OSA may also choose from multiple backend targets based on attributes of the object to be created/written and/or status of the associated backend targets. For example, a namespace may be configured to associate it with multiple backend targets. The OSA can determine current status of the associated backend targets and then select one that satisfies any quality of service or service level agreement associated with a client of the object being created/written. The OSA could also/instead select from the associated backend targets based on consistency levels that can be achieved by the associated backend targets.” ¶ 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nallamalli, Maybee, Ando and Yammine available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando to include the capability of adapting objects to heterogeneous storage targets as taught by Yammine, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by utilizing cloud storage capabilities for storing and accessing translated objects.
12. As per claim 8, Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nallamalli, Maybee and Ando do not explicitly disclose but Yammine discloses wherein the memory comprises the programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: translate a first identifier of an object in the first object request to a second identifier in the second object request, wherein the first identifier is in accordance with a first protocol and the second identifier is in accordance with a second protocol [“the OSA converts the abstracted object command into the backend target protocol implementation of the abstracted object command. The OSA will convert or transfer arguments of the abstracted object command to the target protocol implementation of the abstracted object command,” ¶ 0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Nallamalli, Maybee and Aldo to include the capability of adapting objects to heterogeneous storage targets as taught by Yammine, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by utilizing cloud storage capabilities for storing and accessing translated objects.
13. As per claim 10, Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine teach the apparatus of claim 8. Yammine further teaches wherein the first identifier is a first upload identifier and the second identifier is a second upload identifier [“At block 307, the OSA determines a backend target indicated in the namespace object instance. After selecting the corresponding namespace object instance, the OSA determines which backend target is identified in the namespace object instance,” ¶ 0060; target identification mapped to upload identifier].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo to include the capability of adapting objects to heterogeneous storage targets as taught by Yammine, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by utilizing cloud storage capabilities for storing and accessing translated objects.
14. As per claim 11, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
16. As per claim 14, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
17. As per claim 18, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
18. As per claim 20, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
19. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine in view of Shekhar et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0034220) (Shekhar hereinafter).
20. As per claim 3, Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine do not explicitly disclose but Shekhar discloses wherein the target cloud object store is selected from a plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores having different application programming interfaces (APIs) and wherein the second object request is an API call to an API unique to the target cloud object store [“the second SRE is configured to receive an application programming interface (API) call directed to a NF of the list comprising NFs and endpoint addresses, the API call formatted in a web protocol format, the second SRE is configured to convert the API call from the web protocol format to a micro-services protocol format to yield a converted API call, and the second SRE is configured to transmit the converted API call to the NF based on an endpoint address associated with the NF, the endpoint address retrieved from the list,” Cl. 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli and Shekar available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Yammine, Maybee, Aldo and Nallamalli to include the capability of managing messages across a network as taught by Shekar, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by managing distributed object versions using API calls.
21. As per claim 13, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
22. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine in view of Kotkar et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0387522) (Kotkar hereinafter).
23. As per claim 5, Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine do not explicitly disclose but Kotkar discloses wherein the memory comprises the programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive, from the target cloud object store, an event indicating that the object has been updated in the target cloud object store [“a system for storage block replication in a hybrid storage environment may include modules stored in memory and at least one physical processor operable to implement the modules. The modules may include a volume manager module operable to receive a request associated with a source volume being replicated to modify a cloud object, store an instruction for modifying the cloud object, determine that a replication operation for the source volume has completed, and in response to a determination that the replication operation has completed, modify the cloud object and delete the instruction for modifying the cloud object,” ¶ 0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli and Kotkar available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Yammine, Maybee, Aldo and Nallamalli to include the capability of managing storage blocks in a cloud environment as taught by Kotkar, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing events to subscribers relating to system data updates.
24. As per claim 15, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
25. Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo, Yammine and Kotkar in further view of Moller et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0094792) (Moller hereinafter).
26. As per claim 6, Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo, Yammine and Kotkar teach the apparatus of claim 5. Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo, Yammine and Kotkar do not explicitly disclose but Moller discloses wherein the memory comprises the programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: invoke a callback to the target cloud object store to retrieve the updated object; and store the updated object in the on-premises object store[“FIG. 12 is a method diagram illustrating the use of callback cloud services to aid in the recovery of an on-premise callback system in the event of a premise automatic call distribution and callback server failure. Agent data such as schedules and their profiles regarding average call duration are stored on-premise and co-maintained in a cloud callback system 1205. Also co-maintained between a callback cloud and on-premise callback system are callback objects, which hold data regarding a particular callback request including the requester, the time to attempt the callback, and any information regarding the brand or specific agent to perform the callback, if applicable 1210. Should an on-premise Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) system and callback server fail 1215, a callback cloud may take over management and execution of call distribution and callback-related activities as necessary 1220, with on-site agents interfacing with cloud services for example through a web-browser 1225 and with remaining on-site resources being made available to the cloud infrastructure as needed such as for the purposes of recalculating consumer EWT's 1230, until the on-premise callback stack recovers, essentially behaving as the new callback system for the contact center. Should a contact center's callback stack come back online, data is re-distributed to it from the callback cloud system 1235, with the on-premise server regaining management of callback systems and updating their data from the callback cloud's data as appropriate 1240.” ¶ 0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli, Kotkar and Moller available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli and Kotkar to include the capability of callback management in a cloud environment as taught by Mollar, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing callbacks to subscribers relating to system data updates.
27. As per claim 7, Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo, Yammine and Kotkar teach the apparatus of claim 5. Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo, Yammine and Kotkar do not explicitly disclose but Moller discloses wherein the memory comprises the programmed instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: subscribe to a message broker of the target cloud object store; and receive the event based on being subscribed to the message broker [“FIG. 13 is a method diagram illustrating the use of callback cloud services to aid in the recovery of an on-premise callback system in the event of a partial system failure, using a broker server to leverage third-party resources for failure recovery. Agent data such as schedules and their profiles regarding average call duration are stored on-premise and co-maintained in a cloud callback system 1305. Also co-maintained between a callback cloud and on-premise callback system are callback objects, which hold data regarding a particular callback request including the requester, the time to attempt the callback, and any information regarding the brand or specific agent to perform the callback, if applicable 1310. Should an on-premise Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) system and callback server fail 1315, a callback cloud may take over management and execution of call distribution and callback-related activities as necessary 1320, with a broker server interfacing with third-party services such as other contact centers to leverage other resources to manage the load during the premise downtime 1325. Consumer EWT is recalculated if needed 1330, and should a contact center's callback stack come back online, data is re-distributed to it from the callback cloud system 1335, with the on-premise server regaining management of callback systems and updating their data. from the callback cloud's data as appropriate 1340.” ¶ 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli, Kotkar and Moller available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli and Kotkar to include the capability of callback management in a cloud environment as taught by Mollar, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing callbacks to subscribers relating to system data updates.
28. As per claim 16, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
29. As per claim 17, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
30. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine in view of Hamilton et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0294708) (Hamilton hereinafter).
31. As per claim 9, Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine teach the apparatus of claim 8. Nallamalli, Maybee, Aldo and Yammine do not explicitly disclose but Hamilton discloses wherein the first identifier is a version identifier or an upload identifier in accordance with a first protocol and the second identifier is in accordance with a second protocol [“the node may compare the parent version identifier of the first data object to a node version identifier of the second data object. Such comparing may include executing one or more operations to transform or convert the parent version identifier and the version identifier of the second data object to the same format or data type. comparing may also include determining a difference between the identifiers.” ¶ 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yammine, Maybee, Aldo, Nallamalli and Hamilton available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of emulating local storage as disclosed by Yammine, Maybee, Aldo and Nallamalli to include the capability of managing data object read consistency in a cloud environment as taught by Hamilton, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by managing data object identifications.
32. As per claim 19, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2. Cloud object replication as well as selection of a cloud object store can be accomplished via operator commands at a terminal. The claims limitations, individually and as a whole, are analyzed above with respect to reciting significantly more than the abstract idea and integration into a practical solution. Applicant’s arguments are not supported by persuasive authority in the form of precedential case holdings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Nallimalli is cited above as teaching specific limitations relating to cloud storage and, given the lack of an explicit definition or limiting examples in the specification, the limitations are broadly interpreted as being disclose by Nallimalli.
Nallimalli is not cited as disclosing “a plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores, where each of the plurality of heterogeneous cloud object stores is hosted by a different cloud provider.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights