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 .
Claims 2-18, 20-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.D.C. 101, applicant argues at page 13 of the response filed 16 March 2026:
“As in Ex parte Desjardins, the embodiments claimed in the present application do in fact improve the functioning of a computer. Reference is first made to 0004 of the present application, which states: "Sending all device-generated data to a centralized data center or to a cloud location has resulted in bandwidth and latency issues in conventional systems." Accordingly, conventional systems have no choice but to copy all data back to a central copy and suffer these performance limitations."
In response the examiner is not persuaded. The computer used to send data from a device to a data center is merely a tool to process data, thus there seems to be no improvement to the functioning of a computer as alleged by the applicant. Less data to send of course requires fewer processing resources so the improvement in sending only the changed data might be merely less processing time and less cost but nothing seems to improve the functioning of a computer.
Applicant further cited paragraph 0050 of the specification and argues:
“This is further expanded upon in paragraph 0050 of the present application by outlining that: "conventional systems have been forced to copy all data (including unmodified data) back to a central location, thereby suffering unnecessary and detrimental impacts on compute and/or network throughput. Moreover, these conventional systems modify data without keeping track of what specific portions of data have been updated.”
In response the examiner is not persuaded. Conventional systems that predate applicant’s filing date applied in the rejection of all pending claims clearly show sending only modified data back to a central location is customary in the art.
Applicant argues at page 14 last paragraph of the response:
“Applicant also notes that the thrust of the rejections under 35 USC 101 revolve around "mental processes." To that end, various operations included in each claim cannot be performed in the human mind. For example, claim 1 recites "modifying data in a specific one or more of the data blocks thereby creating modified data blocks, by: creating, at the user location, copies of the one or more data blocks and the data included therein, and only modifying, at the user location, the data in the copies of the one or more data blocks thereby creating modified copies." Applicant submits that creating copies of data blocks and the data included therein, along with modifying data thereby creating modified copies of data cannot be performed in the human mind and therefore are not mental processes”.
In response the examiner points out not all the claimed limitations is considered a mental process. Creating copies of the data block even when performed by using a computer is mere insignificant extra solution activity since it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea of a mental process.
Applicant argues at page 16 last paragraph of the response:
“The following paragraph 0051 in the present application differentiates the claimed invention from these conventional shortcomings. For instance, "implementations herein are able to improve performance in a number of ways by transferring only the data blocks having modified data to a central data storage location. As a result, less compute throughput is consumed at the central data storage location because only data that has been updated (changed) is rewritten, while avoiding data that has not been updated. Additionally, less data is sent between a user location and a central data storage location as a result, thereby reducing network traffic, e.g., as will be described in further detail below" (emphasis added)”.
In response the examiner is not persuaded. Again sending only changed data blocks instead of the entire file is well-known in the art as shown by Ribeiro at least at paragraph 0023. Sending less data of course results in reduced network traffic.
Applicant argues at page 17 of the response:
“Applicant would also like to acknowledge the recent statements made by USPTO Director John A. Squires, which emphasized that improvements in "computational performance, learning, storage, data sets and structures" can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements. This in combination with the amendments and arguments presented herein are believed to overcome the current rejection. The additional elements in the limitations recited above, when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network traffic and data management. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e. step 2A, prong two has been satisfied), such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception”.
In response the examiner is not persuaded. Prior art Grzybowski paragraph 0045 clearly teaches “incremental updates can be provided, increased speed provided by block-based write operations as opposed to file-based write operation” (see page 11 of the non-final Office action mailed 11 February 2026). Thus applicant’s invention does not seem to provide any improvement in any technical field as alleged.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues at page 19 last paragraph to page 20 first paragraph of the response:
“Looking to the NFOA, it is apparent that the rejection of all claims relies on an improper mischaracterization of the claimed limitations. Specifically, the claimed "discarding the unmodified ones of the data blocks from the modified copies of the one or more data blocks before they are sent to the central data storage location over the network" is not actually addressed anywhere in the rejection. Rather, the Examiner conveniently purports that "the claimed 'discarding the unmodified ones of the data blocks from the modified copies of the one or more data blocks before they are sent to the central data storage location over the network' merely reads on the fact that unmodified blocks are not transmitted (see at least Ribeiro [0022])", to which Applicant in no way concedes. NFOA at 23. However, this is simply untrue and unfounded”.
In response the examiner points out the recited “discarding the unmodified ones of the data blocks from the modified copies…before they are sent to the central data storage location over the network” does not require any specific operation, merely seems to result in sending only the modified blocks thus the examiner maintains Ribeiro paragraph 0022 clearly teaches such claimed feature. Note applicant’s specification does not further discuss how the discarding affect the claimed method.
Applicant presents no specific arguments regarding other claims.
For all the reasons discussed above the rejection to all pending claims is maintained using the references of record.
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 2-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. An analysis of subject matter eligibility is presented below.
Step 1: independent claim 3 recites a method in the preamble thus is one of the statutory categories of invention,
Step 2A Prong 1: claim 3 recites a series of acts of "receiving multiple data blocks "modifying data in a specific one or more of the data blocks by The claim as a whole under its broadest reasonable interpretation merely reads on a process of locally making changes to data received from a central storage by human users with the aid of paper and pencil, thus is a mere abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: claim 3 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely includes the addition elements of "discarding the unmodified before they are sent to the central data storage location over the network, sending secondary copies of the modified copies of the one or more data blocks to the central data storage location over the network" is merely data pruning and generic transmission of incrementally modified data to the central storage after making changes, thus is mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Note the recited "over the network" and "wherein the method is performed by a computer at a user location" do not amount to significant more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations do not improve any technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, do not add specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, do not add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, do not include other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment because the computer and network are merely used as tools to implement an abstract idea.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 3 limitation "using the modified copies of the one or more data blocks to identify and exclude unmodified ones of the data blocks" and "in response to receiving an indication over the network that the secondary copies of only the modified data blocks have been implemented at the central data storage location, using the modified copies of the one of more data blocks to replace corresponding ones of the data blocks received from the central data storage location' recited at a high level of generality are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....). As discussed above claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 2 merely requires storing received data and a copy in a cache at user location and further describes the sending process as reproducing only the modified copies of the one or more data blocks and sending only the reproduced modified copies to the central data storage location, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 merely requires the blocks received from the central data storage to remain unchanged at the user location before receiving indication that the modifications have been implemented at the central data storage location, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 merely requires adding a placeholder block and correlate the placeholder block to a new written block, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 merely replaces the placeholder block with the new block after implemented at the central data storage, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 merely performs deletion of a block by using a placeholder block in cache and sending to the central data storage for implementation, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 merely completes deletion of the block after it has been deleted at the central data storage, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 21 as amended merely includes features recited in claims 5- 8 and sending secondary copies of only the modified data blocks from the user location to the central data storage location, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus although claims 2, 4-8, 21 contain more details than their parent claim, the limitations amount to mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 9-16 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 2-8, 21 in form of computer program product, excluding transitory signals as discussed in applicant's specification paragraph 0025, thus are also directed to a judicial exception for the same reasons discussed in claims 2- 8,21 above.
Claims 17, 18, 22 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 3, 5-8 in form of system, thus are also non-statutory for the same reasons discussed in claims 3, 5-8 above. Note the claimed “discarding unmodified ones of the data blocks” recited in claim 22 is mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Note the specification does not further discuss how the discarding affects the claimed system.
As a result, no claim is patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al (20190065526 A1) of record, provided by the applicant, further in view of Grzybowski (US 20110145272 A1) of record.
Regarding independent claim 3, Ribeiro substantially discloses a computer- implemented method, comprising:
receiving multiple data blocks from a central data storage location over a network ([0017] the NAS 110 can provide shared access to files/data 142 stored on the NAS. For example, any of a plurality of clients may request, over the network 120, access to a file. [0027] Although certain embodiments are described herein in the context of files, it should be understood that references to files herein may refer to any sub-segment of data, such as objects, pieces, shards, chunks, blocks, blobs, and the like, and may refer to sub-segments having any desirable size.); note the claimed "at a user location" is met by the location of a client from any of a plurality of clients taught by Ribeiro;
modifying data in one or more of the data blocks ([0017] the NAS 110 can provide shared access to files/data 142 stored on the NAS. For example, any of a plurality of clients may request, over the network 120, access to a file. Such clients may make modifications to the files for storing in the data store 140 of the NAS 110. However, where a first client accesses an editable file, it may be desirable to ensure that a subsequent client that accesses the file does not modify the original file accessed by the first client in an inconsistent manner. That is, it may be desirable for the NAS 110, or other network-connected entity (e.g., cloud storage manager 150), to implement file access protection/management to resolve issues associated with shared resource contention.), by:
creating at the user location copies of the one or more data blocks and the data included therein ([0022] the present disclosure provides for the editing of partial segments/portions of files by a client (or multiple clients concurrently) without the risk of conflicting edits to different segments/portions of the files through the use of partial-edit files,) note the client site of Ribeiro reads on the user location claimed, and
only modifying at the user location the data in the copies of the one or more data blocks thereby creating modified copies; using the copies of the one or more data blocks to identify the modified data blocks and exclude unmodified ones of the data blocks ([0023] the present disclosure relates to devices, systems, and methods for managing shared file modification and/or modifying existing files partially without requiring re-uploading of the entire file. The principles disclosed herein provide a mechanism for modifying existing files in a data storage server or device consistently through the use of partial-edit files, which may comprise a copy of an original file being modified);
note the recited “discarding the unmodified ones of the data blocks from the modified copies of the one or more blocks before they are sent to the central data storage location over the network” does not require any specific operation, merely seems to result in sending only the modified blocks thus the examiner maintains Ribeiro paragraph 0022 clearly teaches such claimed feature. Note also applicant’s specification does not further discuss how the discarding affect the claimed method.
Furthermore although Ribeiro does not specifically show modifying data in a specific data block, it is customary in the art to do so as shown by Grzybowski ([0073]: In further embodiments, the software components 608- 624 can be cached at the local user device (as mentioned above with respect to FIG. 4) to allow a user to receive user-specific blocks. De-duping processes can be employed to ensure that common software blocks (e.g., operating system blocks, or other non-user-specific blocks) are not required to be re- transmitted to a user device.)
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include modifying data in a specific data block as taught by Grzybowski while implementing the method of Ribeiro in order to allow clients to modify their client-specific data blocks thus increasing speed provided by block-based write operations as opposed to file-based write operation (Grzybowski [0045]: incremental updates can be provided, increased speed provided by block-based write operations as opposed to file-based write operations);
Ribeiro/Grzybowski further teaches creating at the user location copies of the one or more data blocks and the data included therein and only modifying at the user location the data in the copies of the one or more data blocks (Grzybowski [0066]... In further embodiments, the software components 608-624 can be cached at the local user device (as mentioned above with respect to FIG. 4) to allow a user to receive user-specific blocks. De-duping processes can be employed to ensure that common software blocks (e.g., operating system blocks, or other non-user-specific blocks) are not required to be re-transmitted to a user device). Note the fact that the software components 608-624 can be cached at the local user device suggests the user creates copies of the data blocks and edits the copies as claimed;
Ribeiro /Grzybowski further teaches: sending a copy of the modified data blocks to the central data storage location over the network, wherein unmodified ones of the data blocks are not sent to the central data storage location (Ribeiro [0022] use of partial-edit files in accordance with the present disclosure may allow for clients in a network-attached data storage system to download and re-upload only portions of a file, rather than the entire file, when making file modifications, while ensuring consistency of edits in the file., Grzybowski [0045]: incremental updates can be provided, increased speed provided by block-based write operations as opposed to file-based write operations); and
the difference is Ribeiro/ Grzybowski does not specifically show: in response to receiving an indication over the network that the modified data blocks have been implemented at the central data storage location, using the modified data blocks to replace corresponding ones of the data blocks received from the central data storage location,
however Ribeiro clearly teaches returning an error to the client when problem arises for file updates ([0084].. By comparing the version information provided by the client with the current version information associated with the original file, the data storage server may determine whether the original file has changed since the partial-edit file was created, and may take measures to prevent the overwriting of previous modifications in the event that the versions do not match. If the versions do not match, the data storage server may return an error to the client so that the client can determine whether it is desired to force the overwrite,). Note also the claimed features of "using the modified data blocks to replace corresponding ones of the data blocks received from the central data storage location" merely read on the fact that once the changes made by the client at the client location have been committed at the data storage server, the client-modified, committed data replace the data originally received from the data storage server NAS of Ribeiro.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving confirmation of file update by the data storage server while implementing the method of Ribeiro/Grzybowski before using the updated data in place of the data originally received at the client in order to ensure the latest local client version is consistent with the version stored at the data storage server;
wherein the method is performed by a computer at a user location (Ribeiro Fig.4 [0069]-[0074], Fig.5 [0079]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Ribeiro/Grzybowski further teaches or suggests the computer- implemented method of claim 3, wherein (i) the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location, and (ii) the copies of the one or more data blocks, are stored in cache at the user location (Ribeiro [0036]... The file system 256 may process data storage access requests from the client 230 via the client application interface 251 to access logical files, and may use the file mapping data 257 to locate the associated physical location in the data storage 240. The file system 256 may further maintain a file cache, which is used to buffer data written to, and/or read from, files of the file system. The file cache may be implemented using the volatile memory 254. The file data 257 may be maintained in the non-volatile data storage 240, and may be uploaded to volatile memory for use by the file system 250 and flushed (e.g., periodically) to allow for recreation of the file data after a power cycle.);
wherein sending secondary copies of the modified copies of the one or more data blocks to the central data storage location over the network includes reproducing only the modified copies of the one or more data blocks and sending only the reproduced modified copies to the central data storage location (Grzybowski ([0073]: In further embodiments, the software components 608-624 can be cached at the local user device (as mentioned above with respect to FIG. 4) to allow a user to receive user-specific blocks, [0045]: incremental updates can be provided, increased speed provided by block-based write operations as opposed to file-based write operations).
Regarding claim 4, Ribeiro/Grzybowski further teaches or suggests the computer- implemented method of claim 3, wherein the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location remain unmodified at the user location before receiving the indication that the modified data blocks have been implemented at the central data storage location (Ribeiro [0045] maintaining the partial-edit file 270/271 over the duration of editing by the client 230, and committing all edits made during such period collectively at one time).
Claims 9-12 essentially recite the limitations of claims 21, 2-4 in form of computer program product thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 21, 2-4 above.
Claim 17 essentially recites the limitations of claim 21 in form of system thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 21 above.
Claim(s) 5-8, 13-16, 18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al (20190065526 A1) of record, provided by the applicant, in view of Grzybowski (US 20110145272 A1) of record, further In view of Patel et al (US 8024383 B2) of record.
Regarding claim 5, Ribeiro/Grzybowski teaches the computer- implemented method of claim 3, comprising: writing a new block of data in cache (Ribeiro [0036]: The file system 256 may further maintain a file cache, which Is used to buffer data written to, and/or read from, files of the file system, Ribeiro [0070]... partial-edit file may be representative of a new file created by the client.);
The difference is Ribeiro/Grzybowski does not specifically teach: adding a new placeholder block to the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location; and
correlating the placeholder block to the new block of data.
However it is customary in the art to use placeholders as links to blocks that contain updated/modified data as shown by Patel (see at least col.4 lines 57-67).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claimed features while implementing the method of Ribeiro/Grzybowski in order to update/modify original blocks received from the central data storage in a transaction-safe mode as taught by Patel.
Regarding claim 6, Ribeiro/Grzybowski/Patel teaches or suggests the computer- implemented method of claim 5, comprising: in response to receiving an indication that the new block of data has been implemented at the central data storage location, replacing the placeholder block with the new block of data when Patel shows using placeholders to safely link to edited data (see at least col.4 lines 57-67), clearly after the new block of data has been committed at the central data storage the placeholder block has to be replaced by the new block of data.
Regarding claim 7, Ribeiro/Grzybowski does not teach the computer- implemented method of claim 3, comprising:
deleting one of the multiple data blocks by:
adding a new placeholder block in cache, the new placeholder block being configured to indicate that a deletion request for a corresponding one of the data blocks received from the central data storage location has been received; and
sending the new placeholder block to the central data storage location for implementation.
However Ribeiro clearly teaches using a cache to buffer edited data (see at least [0036]: The file system 256 may further maintain a file cache, which is used to buffer data written to, and/or read from, files of the file system).
Furthermore it is customary in the art to use placeholders as links to blocks that contain updated/modified data as shown by Patel (see at least col.4 lines 57-67).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claimed features while implementing the method of Ribeiro/ Grzybowski in order to update/modify original blocks received from the central data storage in a transaction-safe mode as taught by Patel.
Regarding claim 8, Ribeiro/ Grzybowski /Patel further teaches the computer- implemented method of claim 7, wherein deleting one of the multiple data blocks includes: in response to receiving an indication that the new placeholder block has been implemented at the central data storage location, deleting the modified data blocks to replace corresponding ones of the data blocks received from the central data storage location (see at least Ribeiro [0044] Once the partial-edit file 271 has been committed, the partial-edit file 271 may be deleted.).
Claims 13-16 essentially recite the limitations of claims 5-8 in form of computer program product thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 5-8 above.
Claim 18 essentially recites the limitations of claim 5 in form of system thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 20 essentially recites the limitations of claims 7, 8 in form of system thus is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 7, 8 above. Note Ribeiro teaches the now added "wherein the new block of data is implemented at the central data storage location by directly modifying an original data block of an existing file at the central data storage location using metadata and/or length information in the new block of data, wherein the existing file at the central data storage location is not a partial- edit file" when Ribeiro show the first client accesses and edits the original file (see at least [0017]... For example, any of a plurality of clients may request, over the network 120, access to a file. Such clients may make modifications to the files for storing in the data store 140 of the NAS 110. However, where a first client accesses an editable file, it may be desirable to ensure that a subsequent client that accesses the file does not modify the original file accessed by the first client in an inconsistent manner.).
Regarding claim 21, Ribeiro/Grzybowski further teaches or suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 3, comprising:
writing a new block of data in cache (Ribeiro [0036]: The file system 256 may further maintain a file cache, which Is used to buffer data written to, and/or read from, files of the file system, Ribeiro [0070]... partial-edit file may be representative of a new file created by the client.);
The difference is Ribeiro/Grzybowski does not specifically teach: adding a new placeholder block to the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location; and
correlating the placeholder block to the new block of data.
However it is customary in the art to use placeholders as links to blocks that contain updated/modified data as shown by Patel (see at least col.4 lines 57-67).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claimed features while implementing the method of Ribeiro/Grzybowski in order to update/modify original blocks received from the central data storage in a transaction-safe mode as taught by Patel.
Ribeiro/Grzybowski/Patel further teaches or suggests:
in response to receiving an indication that the new block of data has been implemented at the central data storage location, replacing the placeholder block with the new block of data (see at least Patel col.4 lines 57-67 using placeholders to safely link to edited data), clearly after the new block of data has been implemented at the central data storage the placeholder block has to be replaced by the new block of data as claimed;
Ribeiro/Grzybowski/Patel further teaches or suggests:
deleting one of the multiple data blocks by:
adding a new placeholder block in cache, the new placeholder block being configured to indicate that a deletion request for a corresponding one of the data blocks received from the central data storage location has been received, sending the new placeholder block to the central data storage location for implementation (see at least Patel col,4 lines 57-67 using placeholders to safely link to edited data), Ribeiro [0036]: The file system 256 may further maintain a file cache, which Is used to buffer data written to, and/or read from, files of the file system, Ribeiro [0070]... partial-edit file may be representative of a new file created by the client.); note file edit clearly suggests deleting one of the data blocks,
and
in response to receiving an indication that the new placeholder block has been implemented at the central data storage location, deleting the modified copies of the one or more data blocks to replace corresponding ones of the data blocks received from the central data storage location (see at least Ribeiro [0044] Once the partial-edit file 271 has been committed, the partial-edit file 271 may be deleted.). Clearly after the new placeholder block has been implemented at the central data storage, the placeholder block has to be replaced by the new block of data as claimed;
wherein (i) the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location (Ribeiro Fig.2, client 230, data storage server 210 connected over network 220), and (ii) the copies of the one or more data blocks, are stored in cache at the user location (Ribeiro [0036]: The file system 256 may further maintain a file cache, which Is used to buffer data written to, and/or read from, files of the file system),
sending secondary copies of only the modified data blocks from the user location to the central data storage location, wherein unmodified ones of the data blocks are not sent to the central data storage location (see at least Ribeiro [0049]: By only downloading the partial file 262, and likewise only uploading the partial file 235, the system 200 provides a file editing mechanism that advantageously reduces network bandwidth requirements compared to systems in which entire files are downloaded, modified locally, and re- uploaded by the client};
wherein the computer at the user location is connected to a computer at the central data storage location over the network (Ribeiro Fig.2, client 230, data storage server 210 connected over network 220),
wherein the multiple data blocks received at the user location from the central data storage location are not part of a partial-edit file (Ribeiro [0017]:… For example, any of a plurality of clients may request, over the network 120, access to a file. Such clients may make modifications to the files for storing in the data store 140 of the NAS 110. However, where a first client accesses an editable file, it may be desirable to ensure that a subsequent client that accesses the file does not modify the original file accessed by the first client in an inconsistent manner.). Note Ribeiro clearly shows the first client accesses and edits the original file, not a partial-edit file;
wherein sending secondary copies of the modified copies of the one or more data blocks to the central data storage location over the network (Ribeiro Fig.2, client 230, data storage server 210 connected over network 220) includes: reproducing only the modified copies of the one or more data blocks, and sending only the reproduced modified copies to the central data storage location (Ribeiro [0049] By only downloading the partial file 262, and likewise only uploading the partial file 235, the system 200 provides a file editing mechanism that advantageously reduces network bandwidth requirements compared to systems in which entire files are downloaded, modified locally, and re- uploaded by the client}..
Regarding claim 22, Ribeiro/Grzybowski does not specifically teach the system of claim 17, wherein the logic is configured to:
in response to receiving a deletion request for a given one of the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location,
add a new placeholder block in cache, wherein the new placeholder block includes metadata that references the given one of the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location;
correlate the new placeholder block with the given one of the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location;
send the new placeholder block to the central data storage location;
cause a data deletion corresponding to the new placeholder block to occur at the central data storage location;
however it is customary in the art to use placeholders as links to blocks that contain updated/modified data as shown by Patel (see at least col.4 lines 57-67).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claimed features while implementing the method of Ribeiro/Grzybowski in order to update/modify original blocks received from the central data storage in a transaction-safe mode as taught by Patel, and
in response to receiving an indication that the data deletion corresponding to the new placeholder block occurred at the central data storage location:
deleting the given one of the multiple data blocks received from the central data storage location, and
deleting the new placeholder block,
wherein using the copies of the one or more data blocks to identify the modified data blocks and exclude unmodified ones of the data blocks includes (see at least Patel col.4 lines 57-67), note the claimed "discarding the unmodified ones of the data blocks from the modified copies of the one or more data blocks before they are sent to the central data storage location over the network" merely reads on the fact that unmodified blocks are not transmitted (see at least Ribeiro [0022]). Note the recited “discarding” of unmodified blocks does not require any specific operation, does not affect how the modified blocks are transmitted in any manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fouda (US 20220284042 A1) teaches methods, systems, and machine readable mediums for efficient asynchronous replication of hierarchical records across data storage locations. Methods and systems are also described for efficiently updating replicated records. Disclosed also in some examples are improved storage, replication, and distribution of data related to network-based meetings (e.g., media) in hierarchical records. Data for one or more components of the meeting (e.g., media) may be stored in a child record (called a component record). The network-based meeting may be described by a parent record with links to, and in some example descriptions of, the meeting component records (the child records).
Kapadia et al (WO 2017105936 A1) teach systems, methods, and software for management of redundant data storage centers. An exemplary method includes redundantly storing data records across the redundant data storage centers, with a first data storage center operating as a primary data storage center configured to respond to at least user input related to the data records. The method includes placing the first data storage center into an intermediate mode which comprises ceasing response to the user input by the first data storage center and executing pending operations related to previous user input received by the first data storage center, and designating the second data storage center as the primary data storage center configured to respond to at least further user input related to the data records.
Brahmadesam et al (US 10909143 B1) teach data pages of a database may be shared to create a copy of the database. A request to create a copy of the database may be received. Pointers to the data pages in the data store may be generated and stored as part of the copy of the database. When a request to read a data page in the copy of the database is received, the pointer to the data page may be accessed and the data page read from the database. When a request to modify a data page in the copy of the database is received, a modified version of the data page may be stored as part of the copy of the database and the pointer updated to point to the modified version of the data page.
BANGALORE et al (US 20170091046 A1) teach a data storage management approach that performs backup operations flexibly, based on a dynamic scheme of monitoring block changes occurring in production data. The illustrative system monitors block changes based on certain block-change thresholds and triggers block-level backups of the changed blocks when a threshold is passed. Block changes may be monitored in reference to particular files based on a reverse lookup mechanism. The illustrative system also collects and stores historical information on block changes, which may be used for reporting and predictive analysis.
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 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 UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 6 May 2026
Prosecution Insights