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 .
Response to Amendments
The action is responsive to the Applicant’s Amendment filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18, and 21-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 21, and 23-24 are amended. Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections previously made and the amended claims filed on 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of the claim amendments, the rejections are being updated accordingly.
In regards to independent claim 1, Applicant argued that cited reference Emberson fails to teach the amended limitations of “wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the second metadata storage area being time-protected so that the copy of the metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user for a specified period of time”.
In response to the arguments, it is submitted the cited limitations are being properly addressed by Emberson based at least on Emberson disclosing the following:
Emberson discloses a retention policy in [Abstract]: “Use of multivariate data backup retention policies… respective retention policies of the plurality of retention policies,” in Fig 5, and in numerous times throughout the reference. The retention policy is a specified period of time for retaining data. In cols. 48 and Figs. 4-5, Emberson discloses that “a metadata representation of storage content may be used to create snapshots in accordance with an implementation of multivariate data backup retention policies”.
A previous limitation in claim 1 already recites “storing a copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area within the storage system, the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user”. Therefore, when Emberson teaches the limitation recited in claim 1 of “storing a copy of the metadata…” by continuing in col. 49, the retention policy (i.e. specified period of time) is already applied to the storage area because storage content may be used to create snapshots in accordance with an implementation of multivariate data backup retention policies (See Figs. 4-5 and [Cols. 48-49]).
Therefore, Emberson teaches the amendment of “wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the second metadata storage area being time-protected” because the storage area is already time-protected by the data backup retention policy. Also, the limitation of “so that the copy of the metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user for a specified period of time” is nonfunctional descriptive material describing the copy of the metadata. In addition, “the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user” is previously recited in claim 1, and Emberson teaches this limitation in ([Col. 49- Col. 50] as outlined in the Office Action.
Thus, for at least the reasons as set forth above, it is submitted that the amended limitations of “wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the second metadata storage area being time-protected so that the copy of the metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user for a specified period of time” are properly addressed.
In regards to independent claims 10 and 21, the emphasized limitations that the Applicant argues in claims 10 and 21 are similar to the emphasized limitations of claim 1, which have been addressed above. See the response of claim 1 above for explanation.
Furthermore, it is also submitted that all limitations in pending claims, including those not specifically argued, are properly addressed. The reason is set forth in the rejections. See claim analysis below for detail.
Specification
In view of the amendment to the specification filed on 11/03/2025, the objections as set forth in the previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are not clear because claim 3 depends on itself and claim 4 depends on claim 3. Claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, and must have clarity and precision.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 20050177687 A1) in view of Emberson (US 11921670 B1) and Correl (US 20070038822 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rao discloses a method for protecting data within a storage system (Fig. 2; [0025]: metadata storage 230 is implemented as a non-volatile storage medium and may generally be used for reconstruction of metadata and as a backup), the method comprising: using at least one processor (Fig. 1; [0017]: hosts 15A-15D may include one or more processors) to perform:
receiving user data by the storage system (Fig. 3; [0030]: The first field from the left is labeled "Volume ID," which identifies a storage volume on which the user data is stored);
storing portions of the user data in a data storage area within the storage system (Fig. 2B; [0028]: A cache descriptor group consists of a number of cache descriptors that point to a number of data blocks that hold user data);
However, Rao does not explicitly teach “storing metadata referencing portions of the user data in a first metadata storage area within the storage system, the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area being modifiable by a user, the metadata including first references to the portions of the user data; and storing a copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area within the storage system, the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user, the copy of the metadata including second references to the portions of the user data, wherein the second metadata storage area is different from the first metadata storage area and wherein the second references are different from the first references.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Emberson teaches
storing metadata referencing portions of the user data in a first metadata storage area within the storage system ([Col. 1, lines 48-53]: FIG. 4 sets forth diagrams of metadata representations that… may represent… a portion of a logical volume; [Col. 49, lines 28-29]: For example, a volume (452) may be represented by a metadata representation (450)) [metadata representation (450) corresponds to a first metadata storage area]),
the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area being modifiable by a user ([Col. 49, lines 45-46]: the volume (452) sharing the metadata representation may continue to be modified; [Col. 49, line 53 - Col. 50, line 5]: In response to the write operation… the metadata representation (450), which represents the current volume (452), is modified to include a new data object),
the metadata including a first plurality of references to the portions of the user data, the first plurality of references including a first reference to a first portion of the user data (Fig. 4; [Col. 49, lines 22-36]: a metadata representation (450), which includes multiple metadata object nodes (452, 452A-452N), where leaf nodes (452A-452N) include pointers to respective data objects (453A-453N, 457); and
storing a copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area within the storage system (Fig. 4; [Col. 49, lines 37-52]: a snapshot (456) may be created… the metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) includes all of the metadata objects for the metadata representation (450) for the volume (452)… the metadata representations for the volume (452) and the snapshot (456) are identical [metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) corresponds to a copy of the metadata in a second metadata storage area]),
the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user ([Col. 49, lines 43-44]: the metadata representation (454) may be designated to be read only; [Col. 49, line 53 - Col. 50, line 5]: In response to the write operation, the read only data objects (453A-453N) referred to by the metadata representation (454) remain unchanged),
the copy of the metadata including a second plurality of references to the portions of the user data, the second plurality of references including a second reference to the first portion of the user data ([Col. 49, line 53 - Col. 50, line 5]: the metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) includes all of the metadata objects for the metadata representation (450) for the volume (452)), and
wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the second metadata storage area being time-protected so that the copy of the metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user for a specified period of time ([Col. 50, lines 20-34]: In this way, using metadata representations, a volume or a portion of a volume may be considered to be snapshotted, or considered to be copied, by creating metadata objects, and without actual duplication of data objects—where the duplication of data objects may be deferred until a write operation is directed at one of the read only data objects referred to by the metadata representations. [In using metadata representations, the retention policy for the storage area already includes a specified period of time. Also, nonfunctional descriptive material describing the copy of the metadata]).
Additionally, Correl teaches wherein the second metadata storage area is different from the first metadata storage area and wherein the second plurality of references are different from the first plurality of references (See Figs. 1-3 ; metadata servers 6a-6n; [0018]-[0023]: FIG. 1 illustrates a distributed file system computing environment in accordance with embodiments. A metadata cluster 2 includes a plurality of metadata engines 4a, 4b . . . 4n that include metadata server programs 6a, 6b . . . 6n to manage a global namespace referencing files stored in user data storage systems 8b . . . 8n),
wherein the first reference to the first portion of the user data is different from the second reference to the first portion of the user data (Figs. 1-3; [0019]: Each metadata engine 4a, 4b . . . 4n may be assigned to handle particular filesets in the global namespace, such that the workload of the global namespace is distributed across the metadata engines 4a, 4b . . . 4n; [0022]-[0023]: The metadata servers 6a, 6b . . . 6n implement a global namespace 16 implementing a distributed file system comprised of a plurality of file sets that map to storage locations in the user storage systems 8b . . . 8n).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rao to incorporate the teachings of Emberson and Correl to copy and store the metadata in a second storage area within the storage system that is not modifiable by the user.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide redundancy, and to protect the data within the storage system, as recognized by Emberson ([Col. 11, lines 5-17] of Emberson: In one embodiment, the storage system 124 may utilize mirroring… to provide redundancy against single or multiple storage device failures or to protect against internal corruptions) and to implement a distributed file system computing environment, as recognized by Correl ([0004]: In a distributed file system, clients share a global namespace addressing storage locations on distributed storage devices… For instance, a metadata server cluster comprised of multiple server devices may maintain the global namespace of a distributed file system stored in different storage pools for the clients).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 3.
Emberson further teaches, further comprising the step of accessing the user data within the storage system during the specified period of time that the copied metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user ([0030]: After the copy operations are complete resulting in a point-in-time copy, the metadata servers 6a . . . 6n enable (at block 120) I/O access to the file sets 52a, 52b before the data blocks have been copied to the copy of the file sets 52b. Thus, the system may recognize that the copy operation has completed before the data is actually copied over).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 3.
Emberson further teaches wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the copy of the metadata stored within the second metadata storage area being modifiable by the user after expiration of the specified period of time (Fig. 5; [0030]: After the copy operations are complete resulting in a point-in-time copy, the metadata servers 6a . . . 6n enable (at block 120) I/O access to the file sets 52a, 52b… The storage subsystem 30a enables (at block 122) I/O access to the metadata after physically copying the metadata 60a to the copy of the metadata 60b… The virtual file system 12a, 12b . . . 12n utilizes the copied metadata to provide the clients 10a, 10b . . . 10n access to the file system implemented in the global name space 16).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 1.
Emberson further teaches, further comprising breaking up the portions of the user data into a plurality of sub-objects with a storage manager and deduplicating the user data with a data deduplicator (Figs. 3B-3C; [Col. 16, lines 58-65]: Medium addresses may be mapped through a series of indirect mediums to spread the load of large files, or implement data services like deduplication or snapshots; [Col. 59, lines 63-67]-[Col. 60, lines 1-3]: Turning to the flowchart depicted in FIG. 5 , as illustrated, the example method includes: generating 502 a snapshot 554 of a dataset 552; identifying 504 respective subsets 558 of the dataset 552 that correspond to respective retention policies 556 of a plurality of retention policies).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 5.
Emberson further teaches wherein the metadata includes system metadata including details of the plurality of sub-objects (Fig. 5; [Col. 59, line 47- Col. 60, line 35]: In some implementations, the snapshot may be created such that snapshot metadata identifies each component portion… a data object being associated with a given user, a data object being associated with a given application, a data object being associated with a given system process, a data object being created within a given window of time (such as a window of time based on recency of creation).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 5.
Emberson further teaches, wherein storing portions of the user data in the data storage area comprises storing raw data of the portions of the user data in the data storage area within the storage system ([Col. 40, lines 62-65]: Data samples may undergo a series of processing steps including… 1) ingesting the data from an external source into the training system and storing the data in raw form).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 8.
Emberson further teaches wherein the second references point to sub-objects in the data storage area that allows the storage system to rehydrate the raw data for the user data ([Col. 49, lines 21-51]: Fig. 4; a metadata representation (450)… where leaf nodes (452A-452N) include pointers to respective data objects (453A-453N, 457)… when the snapshot (456) is created, the metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) includes all of the metadata objects for the metadata representation (450) for the volume (452); [Abstract]: Use of multivariate data backup retention policies, including: generating a snapshot of a dataset).
Regarding Claim 10, Rao discloses a data protection system for protecting data within a storage system (Fig. 2; [0025]: metadata storage 230 is implemented as a non-volatile storage medium and may generally be used for reconstruction of metadata and as a backup), the data protection system comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1; [0017]: hosts 15A-15D may include one or more processors) configured to:
receive user data by the storage system (Fig. 3; [0030]: The first field from the left is labeled "Volume ID," which identifies a storage volume on which the user data is stored);
store portions of the user data in a data storage area within the storage system (Fig. 2B; [0028]: A cache descriptor group consists of a number of cache descriptors that point to a number of data blocks that hold user data);
However, Rao does not explicitly teach “store metadata referencing portions of the user data in a first metadata storage area within the storage system, the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area being modifiable by a user, the metadata including first references to the portions of the user data; and store a copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area within the storage system, the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user, the copy of the metadata including second references to the portions of the user data, wherein the second metadata storage area is different from the first metadata storage area and wherein the second references are different from the first references.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Emberson teaches
store metadata referencing portions of the user data in a first metadata storage area within the storage system, the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area being modifiable by a user, the metadata including a first plurality of references to the portions of the user data, the first plurality of references including a first reference to a first portion of the user data ([Col. 1, lines 48-53]: FIG. 4 sets forth diagrams of metadata representations that… may represent… a portion of a logical volume; [Col. 49, lines 28-29]: For example, a volume (452) may be represented by a metadata representation (450)) [metadata representation (450) corresponds to a first metadata storage area]); and
store a copy of the metadata referencing portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area (Fig. 4; [Col. 49, lines 37-52]: a snapshot (456) may be created… the metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) includes all of the metadata objects for the metadata representation (450) for the volume (452)… the metadata representations for the volume (452) and the snapshot (456) are identical [metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) corresponds to a copy in a second metadata storage area]),
the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user ([Col. 49, lines 43-44]: the metadata representation (454) may be designated to be read only; [Col. 49, line 53 - Col. 50, line 5]: In response to the write operation, the read only data objects (453A-453N) referred to by the metadata representation (454) remain unchanged),
the copy of the metadata including a second plurality of references to the portions of the user data, the second plurality of references including a second reference to the first portion of the user data, ([Col. 49, line 53 - Col. 50, line 5]: the metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) includes all of the metadata objects for the metadata representation (450) for the volume (452)) , and
wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the second metadata storage area being time-protected so that the copy of the metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user for a specified period of time ([Col. 50, lines 20-34]: In this way, using metadata representations, a volume or a portion of a volume may be considered to be snapshotted, or considered to be copied, by creating metadata objects, and without actual duplication of data objects—where the duplication of data objects may be deferred until a write operation is directed at one of the read only data objects referred to by the metadata representations. [In using metadata representations, the retention policy for the storage area already includes a specified period of time. Also, nonfunctional descriptive material describing the copy of the metadata]).
Additionally, Correl teaches wherein the second metadata storage area is different from the first metadata storage area, wherein the second plurality of references are different from the first plurality of references (See Figs. 1-3 ; metadata servers 6a-6n; [0018]-[0023]: FIG. 1 illustrates a distributed file system computing environment in accordance with embodiments. A metadata cluster 2 includes a plurality of metadata engines 4a, 4b . . . 4n that include metadata server programs 6a, 6b . . . 6n to manage a global namespace referencing files stored in user data storage systems 8b . . . 8n),
wherein the first reference to the first portion of the user data is different from the second reference to the first portion of the user data (Figs. 1-3; [0019]: Each metadata engine 4a, 4b . . . 4n may be assigned to handle particular filesets in the global namespace, such that the workload of the global namespace is distributed across the metadata engines 4a, 4b . . . 4n; [0022]-[0023]: The metadata servers 6a, 6b . . . 6n implement a global namespace 16 implementing a distributed file system comprised of a plurality of file sets that map to storage locations in the user storage systems 8b . . . 8n).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rao to incorporate the teachings of Emberson and Correl to copy and store the metadata in a second storage area within the storage system that is not modifiable by the user.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide redundancy, and to protect the data within the storage system, as recognized by Emberson ([Col. 11, lines 5-17] of Emberson: In one embodiment, the storage system 124 may utilize mirroring… to provide redundancy against single or multiple storage device failures or to protect against internal corruptions) and to implement a distributed file system computing environment, as recognized by Correl ([0004]: In a distributed file system, clients share a global namespace addressing storage locations on distributed storage devices… For instance, a metadata server cluster comprised of multiple server devices may maintain the global namespace of a distributed file system stored in different storage pools for the clients).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the data protection system of claim 10.
Emberson further teaches wherein the user can access the user data within the storage system during the specified period of time that the copy of the metadata stored within the second metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user ([0030]: After the copy operations are complete resulting in a point-in-time copy, the metadata servers 6a . . . 6n enable (at block 120) I/O access to the file sets 52a, 52b before the data blocks have been copied to the copy of the file sets 52b. Thus, the system may recognize that the copy operation has completed before the data is actually copied over).
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the data protection system of claim 10.
Emberson further teaches wherein the copy of the metadata stored within the second metadata storage area is modifiable by the user after expiration of the specified period of time (Fig. 5; [0030]: After the copy operations are complete resulting in a point-in-time copy, the metadata servers 6a . . . 6n enable (at block 120) I/O access to the file sets 52a, 52b… The storage subsystem 30a enables (at block 122) I/O access to the metadata after physically copying the metadata 60a to the copy of the metadata 60b… The virtual file system 12a, 12b . . . 12n utilizes the copied metadata to provide the clients 10a, 10b . . . 10n access to the file system implemented in the global name space 16).
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the data protection system of claim 10.
Emberson further teaches wherein the portions of the user data are broken up into a plurality of sub-objects with a storage manager and deduplicated by a data deduplicator (Figs. 3B-3C; [Col. 16, lines 58-65]: Medium addresses may be mapped through a series of indirect mediums to spread the load of large files, or implement data services like deduplication or snapshots; [Col. 59, lines 63-67]-[Col. 60, lines 1-3]: Turning to the flowchart depicted in FIG. 5 , as illustrated, the example method includes: generating 502 a snapshot 554 of a dataset 552; identifying 504 respective subsets 558 of the dataset 552 that correspond to respective retention policies 556 of a plurality of retention policies).
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the data protection system of claim 14.
Emberson further teaches wherein the metadata includes details of the plurality of sub-objects (Fig. 5; [Col. 59, line 47- Col. 60, line 35]: In some implementations, the snapshot may be created such that snapshot metadata identifies each component portion… a data object being associated with a given user, a data object being associated with a given application, a data object being associated with a given system process, a data object being created within a given window of time (such as a window of time based on recency of creation).
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the data protection system of claim 10.
Emberson further teaches wherein the user data includes raw data that is stored in the data storage area within the storage system ([Col. 40, lines 62-65]: Data samples may undergo a series of processing steps including… 1) ingesting the data from an external source into the training system and storing the data in raw form).
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the data protection system of claim 17.
Emberson further teaches wherein at least a portion of the copied metadata that is stored in the user modifiable, second metadata storage area and that is stored in the unmodifiable metadata storage area includes a reference that points to sub-objects in the data storage area that allows the storage system to rehydrate the raw data for the user objects (Fig. 4; [0191]: Further, in this example, the leaves of a metadata representation may include pointers to the stored data for a volume, or portion of a volume… where leaf nodes ( 452 A- 452 N) include pointers to respective data objects ( 453 A- 453 N, 457 )).
Regarding Claim 21, Rao discloses a method for rotecting data within a storage system (Fig. 2; [0025]: metadata storage 230 is implemented as a non-volatile storage medium and may generally be used for reconstruction of metadata and as a backup), the method comprising:
receiving user data (Fig. 3; [0030]: The first field from the left is labeled "Volume ID," which identifies a storage volume on which the user data is stored);
storing portions of user data in a data storage area within the storage system (Fig. 2B; [0028]: A cache descriptor group consists of a number of cache descriptors that point to a number of data blocks that hold user data);
However, Rao does not explicitly teach “storing metadata referencing portions of the user data in a first metadata storage area within the storage system, the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area being modifiable by a user, the metadata including first references to the portions of the user data; and storing a copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area within the storage system, the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user, the copy of the metadata including second references to the portions of the user data, wherein the second metadata storage area is different from the first metadata storage area and wherein the second references are different from the first references.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Emberson teaches
storing metadata referencing portions of the user data in a first metadata storage area within the storage system the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area being modifiable by a user ([Col. 1, lines 48-53]: FIG. 4 sets forth diagrams of metadata representations that… may represent… a portion of a logical volume; [Col. 49, lines 28-29]: For example, a volume (452) may be represented by a metadata representation (450)) [metadata representation (450) corresponds to a first metadata storage area]), the metadata including first references to the portions of the user data (Fig. 4; [Col. 49, lines 22-36]: a metadata representation (450), which includes multiple metadata object nodes (452, 452A-452N), where leaf nodes (452A-452N) include pointers to respective data objects (453A-453N, 457);
creating a copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data, the copy of the metadata including second references to the portions of the user data (Fig. 4; [Col. 49, lines 37-52]: a snapshot (456) may be created… the metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) includes all of the metadata objects for the metadata representation (450) for the volume (452)… the metadata representations for the volume (452) and the snapshot (456) are identical [metadata representation (454) for the snapshot (456) corresponds to a copy in a second metadata storage area]); and
storing the copy of the metadata referencing the portions of the user data in a second metadata storage area within the storage system (Fig. 4, snapshot (456)), the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area not being modifiable by the user ([Col. 49, lines 43-44]: the metadata representation (454) may be designated to be read only; [Col. 49, line 53 - Col. 50, line 5]: In response to the write operation, the read only data objects (453A-453N) referred to by the metadata representation (454) remain unchanged) , and
wherein storing the copy of the metadata includes the second metadata storage area being time-protected so that the copy of the metadata stored within the metadata storage area is not modifiable by the user for a specified period of time ([Col. 50, lines 20-34]: In this way, using metadata representations, a volume or a portion of a volume may be considered to be snapshotted, or considered to be copied, by creating metadata objects, and without actual duplication of data objects—where the duplication of data objects may be deferred until a write operation is directed at one of the read only data objects referred to by the metadata representations. [In using metadata representations, the retention policy for the storage area already includes a specified period of time. Also, nonfunctional descriptive material describing the copy of the metadata]).
Additionally, Correl teaches wherein the first references and the second references referencing same portions of the user data are not shared between the metadata stored in the first metadata storage area and the copy of the metadata stored in the second metadata storage area (See Figs. 1-3; metadata servers 6a-6n; [0018]-[0023]: FIG. 1 illustrates a distributed file system computing environment in accordance with embodiments. A metadata cluster 2 includes a plurality of metadata engines 4a, 4b . . . 4n that include metadata server programs 6a, 6b . . . 6n to manage a global namespace referencing files stored in user data storage systems 8b . . . 8n).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rao to incorporate the teachings of Emberson and Correl to copy and store the metadata in a second storage area within the storage system that is not modifiable by the user.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide redundancy, and to protect the data within the storage system, as recognized by Emberson ([Col. 11, lines 5-17] of Emberson: In one embodiment, the storage system 124 may utilize mirroring… to provide redundancy against single or multiple storage device failures or to protect against internal corruptions) and to implement a distributed file system computing environment, as recognized by Correl ([0004]: In a distributed file system, clients share a global namespace addressing storage locations on distributed storage devices… For instance, a metadata server cluster comprised of multiple server devices may maintain the global namespace of a distributed file system stored in different storage pools for the clients).
Regarding Claim 22, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 21.
Correll further teaches wherein there is no overlap between the second metadata storage area and the first metadata storage area and wherein the second references are different from the first references (See Figs. 1-3; metadata servers 6a-6n; [0018]-[0023]: FIG. 1 illustrates a distributed file system computing environment in accordance with embodiments. A metadata cluster 2 includes a plurality of metadata engines 4a, 4b . . . 4n that include metadata server programs 6a, 6b . . . 6n to manage a global namespace referencing files stored in user data storage systems 8b . . . 8n).
Regarding Claim 23, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 21.
Emberson further teaches further comprising: breaking up raw data of the user data into a plurality of sub-objects (Figs. 3B-3C; [Col. 16, lines 58-65]: Medium addresses may be mapped through a series of indirect mediums to spread the load of large files, or implement data services like deduplication or snapshots); and
deduplicating the plurality of sub-objects to obtain deduplicated sub-objects (Figs. 3B-3C; [Col. 16, lines 58-65]: Medium addresses may be mapped through a series of indirect mediums to spread the load of large files, or implement data services like deduplication or snapshots; [Col. 49, lines 20-23]: the software resources 314 may include software modules that perform carry out various data reduction techniques such as, for example, data compression, data deduplication),
wherein storing the portions of the user data in the data storage area comprises storing the deduplicated sub-objects ([Col. 52, lines 27-31]: For example, a WRITE, WRITE SAME, XDWRITEREAD, XPWRITE, or COMPARE AND WRITE request may store new blocks in the storage system (or use deduplication techniques to identify existing stored blocks)).
Regarding Claim 24, the combined teachings of Rao, Emberson, and Correl disclose the method of claim 1.
Emberson further teaches further comprising: breaking up raw data of the user data into a plurality of sub-objects (Figs. 3B-3C; [Col. 16, lines 58-65]: Medium addresses may be mapped through a series of indirect mediums to spread the load of large files, or implement data services like deduplication or snapshots); and
deduplicating the plurality of sub-objects to obtain deduplicated sub-objects (Figs. 3B-3C; [Col. 49, lines 20-23]: the software resources 314 may include software modules that perform carry out various data reduction techniques such as, for example, data compression, data deduplication),
wherein storing the portions of the user data in the data storage area comprises storing the deduplicated sub-objects ([Col. 52, lines 27-31]: For example, a WRITE, WRITE SAME, XDWRITEREAD, XPWRITE, or COMPARE AND WRITE request may store new blocks in the storage system (or use deduplication techniques to identify existing stored blocks)).
Conclusion
27. 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 extension fee 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 SHIRLEY D. HICKS whose telephone number is (571)272-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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.
/S D H/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168