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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-20 are pending and remain for further examination.
The old rejection maintained
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-20. The rejection is respectfully maintained as set forth in the last Office Action mailed on August 20, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Page et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,756,195 B2) in view of Sawada (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0070574 A1).
As to claim 1, Page et al teach a method (see abstract, figures 3-5, 8 & 10) comprising: identifying a first version of a dataset stored at a target storage system (figure 5, column 8 lines 7-18, figure 10, column 11 lines 1-7, column 12 lines 29-33, identifying data set beginning version stored at a target system); using hint information, wherein the hint information comprises information identifying a recency of the first version of the dataset (figure 8, column 11 lines 1-13, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40, using an update file to determine recently changes in the data set version beginning stored at the target system); determining one or more differences between the first version of the dataset and a second version of the dataset (figure 4, column 7 lines 54-65, figure 8, column 11 lines 3-7, determining differences between the two versions (beginning version & ending version)); and replicating to the target storage system, the one or more differences between the first version of the dataset and the second version of the dataset (figure 5, column 8 lines 7-18, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40, creating ending version based on the number of difference and replacing the target data set with new ending version).
However, Page et al do not explicitly teach that using hint information stored at the target storage system and associated with a version identifier of the first version of the dataset, wherein the hint information comprises information identifying a recency of the first version of the dataset.
Sawada teaches a method (see abstract, figures 1, 8-11, & 15) including that using hint information stored at the target storage system and associated with an identifier of the first version of the dataset at the target storage system (figures 8-11, pars. 0120-0121 & 0123-0124, hint information having an ID of the dataset at the target storage system); and the hint information comprises information identifying a recency of the first version of the dataset (figure 11, pars. 0148-0152, figure 15, pars. 0182-0188, hint information identifying a version/update of the dataset).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sawada as stated above with the method of Page et al for using the hint information to determine current version/status of data stored in the target storage system because it would have provided reliable communication between source storage and target storage and reduced the amount of data that is communicated between source storage system and target storage system, and also increased the speed of the replication process.
As to claim 2, Page et al teach that the dataset to be replicated is stored on a source storage system that adheres to a first storage architecture and wherein the target storage system adheres to a second storage architecture (figures 3-5, column 7 line 35 to column 8 line 18).
As to claim 3, Page et al teach that creating a new volume on the target storage system; storing, in the new volume on the target storage system, the data associated with the differences; creating, on the target storage system, a dataset of the new volume; and deleting the new volume (figure 5, column 8 lines 8-18, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40).
As to claim 4, Sawada teaches that issuing, to the target storage system, a request to store hint information associated with the data transferred from a source storage system to the target storage system (pars. 0099, 0179-0180, 0190-0196, 0248-0250, the target storage system stores hint information related to the data transferred from a source storage system to the target storage system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sawada as stated above with the method of Page et al because it would have provided reliable communication between source storage and target storage and reduced the amount of data that is communicated between source storage system and target storage system, and also increased the speed of the replication process.
As to claim 5, Page et al teach that issuing, to a source storage system that is storing the dataset to be replicated, a request to delete a stored dataset (figure 5, column 8 lines 8-18, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40).
As to claim 6, Page et al teach that comparing the dataset to be replicated to the target storage system and the most recent version of the dataset that is stored on the target storage system (figure 5, column 8 lines 8-18, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40).
As to claim 7, Page et al teach that the information identifying the recency of the first version of the dataset identifies a version recency of the first version of the dataset relative to other versions of the dataset (figure 8, column 11 lines 1-13, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40).
As to claims 8-14, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-7 above, since claims 8-14 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-7, also claims 8-14 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-7.
As to claims 15-20, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-7 above, since claims 15-20 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-7, also claims 15-20 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recited the limitation “using hint information associated with an identifier of the first version of the dataset at the target storage system,” which is unclear about the identifier define by the hint information or the first version of the dataset; therefore, the claims 1, 8, and 15 are being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recited the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium which, when executed, cause a processing device to: …,” which is missing computer programs or instructions stored in computer readable storage medium, and the computer programs or instructions executed by a processing device.
Other dependent claims, which are not specifically cited above are also rejected because of the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-20. In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
Argument: Applicant argues that no combination of the cited references can be used to establish a prima facie case of obviousness against the claims of the present application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited references, individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest "identifying a first version of a dataset stored at a target storage system using hint information stored at the target storage system and associated with a version identifier of the first version of the dataset, wherein the hint information comprises information identifying a recency of the first version of the dataset."
Response: Page et al teach that identifying a first version of a dataset stored at a target storage system (figure 5, column 8 lines 7-18, figure 10, column 11 lines 1-7, column 12 lines 29-33, identifying data set beginning version stored at a target system); using hint information, wherein the hint information comprises information identifying a recency of the first version of the dataset (figure 8, column 11 lines 1-13, figure 10, column 12 lines 29-40, using an update file to determine recently changes in the data set beginning version stored at the target system); determining one or more differences between the first version of the dataset and a second version of the dataset (figure 4, column 7 lines 54-65, figure 8, column 11 lines 3-7, determining differences between the two versions (beginning version & ending version)); and Sawada teaches that using hint information stored at the target storage system and associated with an identifier of the first version of the dataset at the target storage system (figures 8-11, pars. 0120-0121 & 0123-0124, hint information having an ID of the dataset at the target storage system); and the hint information comprises information identifying a recency of the first version of the dataset (figure 11, pars. 0148-0152, figure 15, pars. 0182-0188, hint information identifying a version/update of the dataset), which implies the claimed invention; therefore, the combination of the references teaches the claimed invention and applicant’s arguments are moot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sawada as stated above with the method of Page et al for using the hint information to determine current version/status of data stored in the target storage system because it would have provided reliable communication between source storage and target storage and reduced the amount of data that is communicated between source storage system and target storage system, and also increased the speed of the replication process, which is establish a prima facie case of obviousness against the claim of the present application under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights