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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Applicant states: As a result, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a mental process of performing concepts in the human mind (including by a human using the aid of pen and paper) and/or the application of mathematical relationships, but recites steps that are required to be performed by hardware components. Given the foregoing remarks, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A analysis…. In view of the foregoing remarks, amended independent claim 1 integrates the purported judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A analysis…. The above-indicated elements of amended independent claim 1 result in an improvement in the domain of virtualization systems and storage management. The meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed operations show that the combination of elements imposes meaningful limits in that the operations are applied to improve an existing technology. In summary, the above-mentioned elements of claim 1 provide an improved system and method for transforming computer storage structures, file headers, metadata, and pointers. For at least the reasons provided above, the elements of amended independent claim 10, when combined, result in an inventive concept due to the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the elements. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea under Step 2B. For at least the same reasons as independent claim 1, independent claims 12 and 19 also amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations do not appear to limit the abstract idea to hardware. The limitations comprise steps of determining that a file is to be converted to a second version. Subsequently, the limitations generate a second header that is to be switched for the first header (i.e. a mere mental concept of choosing another decision). Further limitations pertaining to a system failure or power off event is an intended use limitation that amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations determine field definitions, determining a first version of a file, and generating (i.e. determining) a header and metadata set as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: memory, storage devices, and a virtual machine disk image. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of synchronizing changes to storage, and switching an active header do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, 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 elements of memory, storage devices, and a virtual machine disk image, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to synchronizing changes to storage, and switching an active header the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 the limitations of what a file comprises, where the space is adjacent to, configuring a pointer, cutting data, power-off resistance are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 2 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 3, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20 the limitations of generating a header, generating versions are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, 6 the limitations of moving data to another place is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim/s 1, 2, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18- 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiregoudar (Pub. No. US 2023/0305723) in view of Laurent (Pub. No. US 2015/0058382) in further view of Luo (Pub. No. US 2018/0165301).
Claim 1, 12, 19 Hiregoudar teaches “a method comprising: determining that a first version of a file that includes a virtual machine disk image is to be converted from the first version to a second version ([0033] The process of converting a target virtual disk from a source disk format type to a destination disk format type in accordance with an embodiment is described with reference to a process flow diagram of FIG. 3. The file format conversion process begins at step 302, where a request to convert the target virtual disk from the source disk format type to the destination disk format type is received by the file conversion module 126 of the file system 124 in the host computer 104 associated with the target virtual disk, which may be the host computer on which the VM of the target virtual disk is hosted.), generating the second version of the file ([0038] In this manner, the entire target virtual disk is processed one (1) MB of data at a time to convert the disk format type from the source disk format type to the source disk format type. [0026] In order to resolve these disadvantages, the hypervisor 120 in each host computer 104 includes a file conversion (FC) module 126 that converts the file format type of virtual disks stored in the shared storage 108 without unnecessarily plugging blocks of the virtual disks, without erasing recently written VM data, and without making a copy of the target virtual disk. The file conversion module 126 is described in more detail below.)”.
However, Hiregoudar may not explicitly teach further details about the conversion.
Laurent teaches “wherein the first version of the file includes a first header, a first metadata set, and a first data set ([0105] Beginning at step 1, a source virtual machine file (Src File 51) metadata includes three indirections 52-54, labeled Q, R, S, (i.e. metadata) to various of the source metadata objects labeled, a, b, c, d, (of source ("old") pre-amble 113) (i.e. header) and to payload objects 56 (of source payload 114) labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (i.e. first data set) . . . (e.g, continuing with 52 million additional payload objects or "blocks").); … including: generating, within the file, a second header and a second metadata set ([0107] In step 3, the source preamble 113 is transformed and migrated (a, b, c, d.fwdarw.e, f, g, h) creating a new (destination) preamble 113' [0108] In step 4, new indirections 58, 59 (labeled X, Y respectively) are created to reference the new hypervisor metadata (e, f, g, h) of new (destination) preamble 113' and to the existing (source) virtual machine payload 114. [0114] In a further alternative embodiment, a destination file record does not necessarily have to be created, but instead the content and name of the existing (source) file record can be modified to reflect the new indirection tree (as a modified step 6). At the end of the conversion process, the file will be renamed to match the destination hypervisor's format.); synchronizing changes made to the file to a persistent storage ([0011] transforming the HM data elements of the source file to create destination HM data elements in a destination hypervisor format different from the source hypervisor format; [0012] maintaining the locations of the VMP data elements stored on the persistent storage media constant during the conversion from source to destination file formats without reading or writing the VMP data elements;); and switching an active header for the file from the first header to the second header ([0108] In step 4, new indirections 58, 59 (labeled X, Y respectively) are created to reference the new hypervisor metadata (e, f, g, h) of new (destination) preamble 113' and to the existing (source) virtual machine payload 114.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Laurent with the teachings of Hiregoudar in order to provide a system that teaches details of converting virtual disks. The motivation for applying Laurent teaching with Hiregoudar teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved resource usage. Hiregoudar, Laurent are analogous art directed towards virtual disk conversion. Together Hiregoudar, Laurent teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Laurent with the teachings of Hiregoudar by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the new limitations.
Luo teaches a second header for the purposes of failure recovery when the first header is inaccessible such that teaches “wherein the second metadata set points to reference locations of the first metadata set without copying the first metadata set;… wherein the switching employs an atomic cut technique configured to allow the first version or the second version of the file to remain valid in the event of a system failure or power off event ([0042] FAT (File Allocation Table, File Allocation Table) is a table used to record the file location, which is significantly important for file access, and if lost, the data stored on the disk would not been accessed due to inability to locate, so there are two FAT tables in FAT32 file system, FAT1 and FAT2 which is the former backup, and FAT2 stored by FAT1; The root directory area follow by FAT2 table, which records the file name, attributes, created time, last accessed time, start addresses, file size and other information of each file in the root directory (created using the above procedure); The user data area is used to store user data. DBR area, FAT area and root directory area only occupies a small part of the space.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Luo with the teachings of Hiregoudar, Laurent in order to provide a system that teaches failure recovery. The motivation for applying Luo teaching with Hiregoudar, Laurent teaching is to provide a system that allows for accessing data in the event of header failure. Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo are analogous art directed towards format disk conversion. Together Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Luo with the teachings of Hiregoudar, Laurent by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, the combination teaches the claim wherein Hiregoudar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein second version of the file comprises one of a different file format than the first version of the file ([0026] In order to resolve these disadvantages, the hypervisor 120 in each host computer 104 includes a file conversion (FC) module 126 that converts the file format type of virtual disks stored in the shared storage 108 without unnecessarily plugging blocks of the virtual disks, without erasing recently written VM data, and without making a copy of the target virtual disk. The file conversion module 126 is described in more detail below.), or a modification of a format attribute of a file format of the first version.
Claim 8, 15, 21 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Laurent teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein generating the second version of the file comprises maintaining one or more of the first version of the file or the second version of the file in a consistent state during generation of the second version of the file ([0110] In step 6, the original source file 51 and indirections (Q, R) 52, 53 that reference the source hypervisor metadata (a, b, c, d) are removed. Indirection 54 to the original payload is maintained as new indirection (X) 58 references 54.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 9, 16 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Laurent teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising configuring one or more pointers of the second metadata set to identify a location of the first data set within the file, and wherein the one or more pointers identify the location of the first data set relative to a start of the second header ([Fig. 5, 0108] [0108] In step 4, new indirections 58, 59 (labeled X, Y respectively) are created to reference the new hypervisor metadata (e, f, g, h) of new (destination) preamble 113' and to the existing (source) virtual machine payload 114.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 11, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Hiregoudar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises power-off resistance ([0051] These are achieved without having to power off the VM during the entire file format conversion process and without making a copy of the target virtual disk.)”.
Claim 13, 20 “the format conversion system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a first unused space within the file by moving a first metadata of the first metadata set to a second unused space within the file; and generating the second header within the file within the first unused space within the file” is similar to claims 3 and 4, therefore the claim is rejected with the same references and citations.
Claim 18, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Laurent teaches “ The format conversion system of claim 12, wherein generating the second version of the file comprises maintaining a position of the first data set within the file from the first version of the file such that the first data set has a same position within the second version of the file ([0105] Beginning at step 1, a source virtual machine file (Src File 51) metadata includes three indirections 52-54, labeled Q, R, S, (i.e. metadata) to various of the source metadata objects labeled, a, b, c, d, (of source ("old") pre-amble 113) (i.e. header) and to payload objects 56 (of source payload 114) labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (i.e. first data set) . . . (e.g, continuing with 52 million additional payload objects or "blocks")”.
Claim/s 3-7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo in further view of Bainville (Pub. No. US 2017/0090903).
Claim 3, the combination may not explicitly teach using free space when incorporating a new header as taught by Laurent.
Bainville teaches as evidence utilizing free space in a file for in-place updating such that teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein generating the second header within the file comprises generating the second header within a first unused space within the file ([0053] The third stage 303 shows the in-place patching operations in progress. The in-place patching operation updates the “P” and the “C” segments by moving content of those segments around by utilizing the free space that available within the resized file 355. Some embodiments divide the file 355 into pages and use page-tracking tables to move the content of the various segments by manipulating the pages. [0054] The fourth stage 304 shows the state of the file 355 at the completion of the patching operations. The patching operations have installed the new versions of “P” and “C” segments 312, 313, 315, 316, and 318, while open slots of free space remain for “A” segments 311, 314, and 317. [0005] In some embodiments, the in-place patching operations utilize the available free spaces within the file to move data around in order create room for the new version of each patch or copy segment. In some embodiments, the new version of the patch or copy segment is constructed at its new position as specified by the segmentation map. During this construction, as free space in the file is consumed to store the content of the new version, the content of the old version is vacated to open additional free space for subsequent update operations.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Bainville with the teachings of Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo in order to provide a system that teaches details of converting virtual disks. The motivation for applying Bainville teaching with Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved resource usage for in-place conversion. Hiregoudar, Laurent, Bainville, Luo are analogous art directed towards format disk conversion. Together Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo, Bainville teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Bainville with the teachings of Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 4, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bainville teaches “the method of claim 3, further comprising generating the first unused space within the file by moving a first metadata of the first metadata set to a second unused space within the file ([0045] To facilitate the movement of data within the target file (155), some embodiments divide the file into a number of pages. To move data within the file, the updater in some embodiments moves the pages around the file to create the necessary room. In order to track the movement of these pages, some embodiments employ a number of page-tracking tables 250. As illustrated, these page-tracking tables include a “NEW” table, an “OLD” table, a “POS” table, and a “USE” table. The operations of these tracking tables during the in-file updating process will be further described by reference to FIGS. 4-5 below.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 5, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bainville teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein the first unused space is adjacent the first header ([Fig. 2] any free space as adjacent to data as applied to Laurent).
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 6, 14 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bainville teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein generating the first unused space with the file further comprises moving a data portion of the first data set to a third unused space within the file header ([Fig. 2] empty space 217 as a space to move data as applied to Laurent).
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 7, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bainville teaches “the method of claim 6, further comprising configuring a pointer in the first metadata to identify a location of the moved data portion of the first data set ([0060] The “POS” table is for mapping the indices of pages in the file (as the file is being updated) to their indices in the eventual new version of the file or in the old version of the file. In some embodiments, the “POS” table returns ‘Ø’ if it is free.).
Claim/s 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo in further view of Maynard (Pub. No. US 2016/0041993).
Claim 10, 17 the combination may not explicitly teach details of updating the header as taught by Laurent.
Maynard teaches “the method of claim 9, further comprising cutting the first header to cause the second header to be a new start of the file ([0089] The data elements are re-used by repackaging them from a first encoding standard object to a standard object of the second encoding scheme. As will be discussed in detail herein, removing a header portion of the data and replacing it with a header particular to the desired codec may, in many instances, be sufficient to perform the lightweight transcoding discussed herein.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Maynard with the teachings of Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo in order to provide a system that teaches details of updating headers. The motivation for applying Maynard teaching with Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo teaching is to provide a system that allows for in-place conversion as taught by Laurent. Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo, Maynard are analogous art directed towards format management. Together Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo, Maynard teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Maynard with the teachings of Hiregoudar, Laurent, Luo by known methods and gained expected results.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199