DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on April 02, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/02/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 1-7, 9-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani (US Pub 2019/0347338) in view of Shaw (US Pub 2022/0100702) and in further view of Dossing (US Pat 12,184,723).
With respect to claim 1, Mani discloses a computer-implemented method (Mani in [0003] and [0144] discloses a computer implemented method) comprising:…
modifying, by the migration solution bridge engine, the stub to conform to a second migration solution, the modifying comprising transforming a data structure of the stub according to a specification of the second migration solution, the modifying producing a modified stub (Mani in [0102], [0105], and [0114] discloses a migrated file is migrated from a file system to the cloud object storage and only a stub is present on the file system as a result of the migration, replicating data on a primary file system to a secondary file system hosted on a cloud infrastructure, files available on the secondary file system migrated to the cloud object storage; Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files);
replicating, by the migration solution bridge engine, migrated data associated with the first migration solution, the migrated data being referred to the modified stub… (Mani in [0016] discloses replicating data from a physical file system to a virtual file system, and transferring the replicated data from the virtual file system to cloud storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files; here Mani does not explicitly disclose wherein the replicating the data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the data within the cloud storage, but the Dossing reference teaches the feature, as discussed below); and
deleting, by the migration solution bridge engine, the migrated data associated with the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage).
Mani discloses creating and updating stubs by a migration solution bridge engine, however, Mani does not explicitly disclose:
executing…a file scanning algorithm to identify a stub in a filesystem, the executing comprising querying the filesystem with specific search parameters, the stub being associated with a first migration solution;
The Shaw reference discloses executing a file scanning algorithm to identify a stub in a filesystem, the executing comprising querying the filesystem with specific search parameters, the stub being associated with a first migration solution (Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani and Shaw, to have combined Mani and Shaw. The motivation to combine Mani and Shaw would be to select a stub file based on a database entry comprising path information for the stub file (Shaw: [0006]).
Mani discloses replicating migrated data referred to a stub to a cloud storage, however, Mani and Shaw do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the replicating the…data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the…data within the cloud storage;
The Dossing reference discloses wherein replicating data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the data within the cloud storage (Dossing in Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 4 discloses cloud policy specifies different governing rules, such as goals and/or parameters, according to content being duplicated or backed up, such as content may require a quadruple or more duplicate copies; Dossing in Column 22 line 58 – Column 23 line 65 discloses a copy can be cloud sourced, copy can be generated by any cloud computing nodes affiliated with a cloud computing network, duplicate copies of data are only added when necessary, sending a data replication request into the cloud computing network, replication request specifying conditions and identifying data to be duplicated, cloud policy specifies current count of duplicated copies stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani, Shaw, and Dossing, to have combined Mani, Shaw, and Dossing. The motivation to combine Mani, Shaw, and Dossing would be to efficiently distribute copies of data in a cloud by utilizing a policy governed cloud-based service (Dossing: Column 1 lines 23-29).
With respect to claim 2, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first migration solution is a deprecated migration solution, and the second migration solution is a native migration solution (Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files).
With respect to claim 3, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein replicating the migrated data further comprises:
duplicating a data object associated with the migrated data to conform to the second migration solution (Mani in [0093] discloses data stored in a file system replicated to create replicated copy of the data, replicated data sent from the file system to another file system and then to a cloud storage, replicated copy referenced by a stub to identify location of the data within the cloud storage); and
generating new metadata for the duplicated data object to conform to the second migration solution (Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files).
With respect to claim 4, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 3, wherein deleting the migrated data further comprises:
deleting the data object conforming to the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage; Mani in [0104] discloses stubs comprising metadata, after migrating files only stubs are present on a file system; Shaw in [0019] and [0078] discloses removing files following migration; Shaw in [0048] and [0068] discloses deleting stub files, updating database with stub file information); and
deleting a metadata associated with the data object conforming to the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage; Mani in [0104] discloses stubs comprising metadata, after migrating files only stubs are present on a file system; Shaw in [0019] and [0078] discloses removing files following migration; Shaw in [0048] and [0068] discloses deleting stub files, updating database with stub file information).
With respect to claim 5, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein executing the file scanning algorithm further comprises:
performing a policy scan in the filesystem to identify one or more stubs referencing data stored in a cloud storage (Mani in [0115] and [0122] discloses aid migration of data to cloud storage by a policy scan of all the files and directories; Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information).
With respect to claim 6, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
performing the modifying, replicating, and deleting for the stubs identified responsive to performing the policy scan (Mani in [0115], [0122], and [0130] discloses aid migration of data to cloud storage by a policy scan of all the files and directories, update stubs in response to migrating data as part of a running policy; Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information).
With respect to claim 7, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the replicating further comprises:
duplicating the migrated data within the cloud storage to generate a copy of the migrated data that conforms to the second migration solution, without recalling the migrated data to the filesystem (Mani in [0093] discloses data stored in a file system replicated to create replicated copy of the data, replicated data sent from the file system to another file system and then to a cloud storage, replicated copy referenced by a stub to identify location of the data within the cloud storage; Dossing in Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 4 discloses cloud policy specifies different governing rules, such as goals and/or parameters, according to content being duplicated or backed up, such as content may require a quadruple or more duplicate copies; Dossing in Column 22 line 58 – Column 23 line 65 discloses duplicate copies of data are only added when necessary, sending a data replication request into a cloud computing network, replication request specifying conditions and identifying data to be duplicated, cloud policy specifies current count of duplicated copies stored).
With respect to claim 9, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the filesystem is a high-performance file system (Mani in [0100] and [0122] discloses a high performance file system).
With respect to claim 10, Mani discloses a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations (Mani in [0004] and [0144] discloses a computer program product storing program instructions executed by a processor) comprising:…
modifying, by the migration solution bridge engine, the stub to conform to a second migration solution, the modifying comprising transforming a data structure of the stub according to a specification of the second migration solution, the modifying producing a modified stub (Mani in [0102], [0105], and [0114] discloses a migrated file is migrated from a file system to the cloud object storage and only a stub is present on the file system as a result of the migration, replicating data on a primary file system to a secondary file system hosted on a cloud infrastructure, files available on the secondary file system migrated to the cloud object storage; Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files);
replicating, by the migration solution bridge engine, migrated data associated with the first migration solution, the migrated data being referred to the modified stub… (Mani in [0016] discloses replicating data from a physical file system to a virtual file system, and transferring the replicated data from the virtual file system to cloud storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files; here Mani does not explicitly disclose wherein the replicating the data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the data within the cloud storage, but the Dossing reference teaches the feature, as discussed below); and
deleting, by the migration solution bridge engine, the migrated data associated with the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage; replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage).
Mani discloses creating and updating stubs by a migration solution bridge engine, however, Mani does not explicitly disclose:
executing…a file scanning algorithm to identify a stub in a filesystem, the executing comprising querying the filesystem with specific search parameters, the stub being associated with a first migration solution;
The Shaw reference discloses executing a file scanning algorithm to identify a stub in a filesystem, the executing comprising querying the filesystem with specific search parameters, the stub being associated with a first migration solution (Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani and Shaw, to have combined Mani and Shaw. The motivation to combine Mani and Shaw would be to select a stub file based on a database entry comprising path information for the stub file (Shaw: [0006]).
Mani discloses replicating migrated data referred to a stub to a cloud storage, however, Mani and Shaw do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the replicating the…data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the…data within the cloud storage;
The Dossing reference discloses wherein replicating data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the data within the cloud storage (Dossing in Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 4 discloses cloud policy specifies different governing rules, such as goals and/or parameters, according to content being duplicated or backed up, such as content may require a quadruple or more duplicate copies; Dossing in Column 22 line 58 – Column 23 line 65 discloses a copy can be cloud sourced, copy can be generated by any cloud computing nodes affiliated with a cloud computing network, duplicate copies of data are only added when necessary, sending a data replication request into the cloud computing network, replication request specifying conditions and identifying data to be duplicated, cloud policy specifies current count of duplicated copies stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani, Shaw, and Dossing, to have combined Mani, Shaw, and Dossing. The motivation to combine Mani, Shaw, and Dossing would be to efficiently distribute copies of data in a cloud by utilizing a policy governed cloud-based service (Dossing: Column 1 lines 23-29).
With respect to claim 11 , Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer program product of claim 10, wherein the first migration solution is a deprecated migration solution, and the second migration solution is a native migration solution (Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files).
With respect to claim 12, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer program product of claim 10, wherein replicating the migrated data further comprises:
duplicating a data object associated with the migrated data to conform to the second migration solution (Mani in [0093] discloses data stored in a file system replicated to create replicated copy of the data, replicated data sent from the file system to another file system and then to a cloud storage, replicated copy referenced by a stub to identify location of the data within the cloud storage); and
generating new metadata for the duplicated data object to conform to the second migration solution (Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files); and
wherein deleting the migrated data further comprises:
deleting the data object conforming to the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage; Mani in [0104] discloses stubs comprising metadata, after migrating files only stubs are present on a file system; Shaw in [0019] and [0078] discloses removing files following migration; Shaw in [0048] and [0068] discloses deleting stub files, updating database with stub file information); and
deleting a metadata associated with the data object conforming to the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage; Mani in [0104] discloses stubs comprising metadata, after migrating files only stubs are present on a file system; Shaw in [0019] and [0078] discloses removing files following migration; Shaw in [0048] and [0068] discloses deleting stub files, updating database with stub file information).
With respect to claim 13, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer program product of claim 10, wherein executing the file scanning algorithm further comprises:
performing a policy scan in the filesystem to identify one or more stubs referencing data stored in a cloud storage (Mani in [0115] and [0122] discloses aid migration of data to cloud storage by a policy scan of all the files and directories; Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information).
With respect to claim 14, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer program product of claim 13, wherein the replicating further comprises:
duplicating the migrated data within the cloud storage to generate a copy of the migrated data that conforms to the second migration solution, without recalling the migrated data to the filesystem (Mani in [0093] discloses data stored in a file system replicated to create replicated copy of the data, replicated data sent from the file system to another file system and then to a cloud storage, replicated copy referenced by a stub to identify location of the data within the cloud storage; Dossing in Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 4 discloses cloud policy specifies different governing rules, such as goals and/or parameters, according to content being duplicated or backed up, such as content may require a quadruple or more duplicate copies; Dossing in Column 22 line 58 – Column 23 line 65 discloses duplicate copies of data are only added when necessary, sending a data replication request into a cloud computing network, replication request specifying conditions and identifying data to be duplicated, cloud policy specifies current count of duplicated copies stored).
With respect to claim 16, Mani discloses a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations (Mani in [0004] and [0144] discloses system comprising processor and stored program instructions executed by the processor) comprising:…
modifying, by the migration solution bridge engine, the stub to conform to a second migration solution, the modifying comprising transforming a data structure of the stub according to a specification of the second migration solution, the modifying producing a modified stub (Mani in [0102], [0105], and [0114] discloses a migrated file is migrated from a file system to the cloud object storage and only a stub is present on the file system as a result of the migration, replicating data on a primary file system to a secondary file system hosted on a cloud infrastructure, files available on the secondary file system migrated to the cloud object storage; Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files);
replicating, by the migration solution bridge engine, migrated data associated with the first migration solution, the migrated data being referred to the modified stub… (Mani in [0016] discloses replicating data from a physical file system to a virtual file system, and transferring the replicated data from the virtual file system to cloud storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files; here Mani does not explicitly disclose wherein the replicating the data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the data within the cloud storage, but the Dossing reference teaches the feature, as discussed below); and
deleting, by the migration solution bridge engine, the migrated data associated with the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage; replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage).
Mani discloses creating and updating stubs by a migration solution bridge engine, however, Mani does not explicitly disclose:
executing…a file scanning algorithm to identify a stub in a filesystem, the executing comprising querying the filesystem with specific search parameters, the stub being associated with a first migration solution;
The Shaw reference discloses executing a file scanning algorithm to identify a stub in a filesystem, the executing comprising querying the filesystem with specific search parameters, the stub being associated with a first migration solution (Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani and Shaw, to have combined Mani and Shaw. The motivation to combine Mani and Shaw would be to select a stub file based on a database entry comprising path information for the stub file (Shaw: [0006]).
Mani discloses replicating migrated data referred to a stub to a cloud storage, however, Mani and Shaw do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the replicating the…data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the…data within the cloud storage;
The Dossing reference discloses wherein replicating data comprises sending a copy request to a cloud storage to replicate the data within the cloud storage (Dossing in Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 4 discloses cloud policy specifies different governing rules, such as goals and/or parameters, according to content being duplicated or backed up, such as content may require a quadruple or more duplicate copies; Dossing in Column 22 line 58 – Column 23 line 65 discloses a copy can be cloud sourced, copy can be generated by any cloud computing nodes affiliated with a cloud computing network, duplicate copies of data are only added when necessary, sending a data replication request into the cloud computing network, replication request specifying conditions and identifying data to be duplicated, cloud policy specifies current count of duplicated copies stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani, Shaw, and Dossing, to have combined Mani, Shaw, and Dossing. The motivation to combine Mani, Shaw, and Dossing would be to efficiently distribute copies of data in a cloud by utilizing a policy governed cloud-based service (Dossing: Column 1 lines 23-29).
With respect to claim 17, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer system of claim 16, wherein the first migration solution is a deprecated migration solution, and the second migration solution is a native migration solution (Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files).
With respect to claim 18, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer system of claim 16, wherein replicating the migrated data further comprises:
duplicating a data object associated with the migrated data to conform to the second migration solution (Mani in [0093] discloses data stored in a file system replicated to create replicated copy of the data, replicated data sent from the file system to another file system and then to a cloud storage, replicated copy referenced by a stub to identify location of the data within the cloud storage); and
generating new metadata for the duplicated data object to conform to the second migration solution (Mani in [0116] and [0130] discloses migrating data from a file system to a cloud object storage, updating the stubs as part of the metadata which copies the data to new versions of files on the cloud object storage; Mani in [0129] discloses accessing data on a new primary file system by fetching data from a secondary file system which gets data from cloud storage using stubs of the files); and
wherein deleting the migrated data further comprises:
deleting the data object conforming to the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage; Mani in [0104] discloses stubs comprising metadata, after migrating files only stubs are present on a file system; Shaw in [0019] and [0078] discloses removing files following migration; Shaw in [0048] and [0068] discloses deleting stub files, updating database with stub file information); and
deleting a metadata associated with the data object conforming to the first migration solution (Mani in [0070] and [0071] discloses stub created at the virtual file system when the replicated data is transferred from the virtual file system to the cloud storage, the stub represents the replicated data transferred to the cloud storage, replicated data removed from virtual file system after transferring the replicated data to the cloud storage; Mani in [0104] discloses stubs comprising metadata, after migrating files only stubs are present on a file system; Shaw in [0019] and [0078] discloses removing files following migration; Shaw in [0048] and [0068] discloses deleting stub files, updating database with stub file information).
With respect to claim 19, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer system of claim 16, wherein executing the file scanning algorithm further comprises:
performing a policy scan in the filesystem to identify one or more stubs referencing data stored in a cloud storage (Mani in [0115] and [0122] discloses aid migration of data to cloud storage by a policy scan of all the files and directories; Shaw in [0006] and [0018] discloses selecting at least a given stub file of one or more stub files for migration from a source storage location to a target storage location, selection of the given stub file based on a database entry comprising storage location path information for the given stub file, using an archiving and migration platform to archive files from a storage device to a cloud storage platform; Shaw in [0042], [0045], and [0078] discloses scanning entries in a database pertaining to stub files to evaluate the database entries to determine whether the stub files satisfy a constraint set forth in a given stub migration policy, database entries modified to replace source storage location path information for stub files with target storage location path information).
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani (US Pub 2019/0347338) in view of Shaw (US Pub 2022/0100702) in view of Dosing (US Pat 12,184,723) and in further view of Araki (US Pub 2022/0051695).
With respect to claim 8, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the method of claim 1, Mani in [0065] discloses deleting data stored within a file system and Shaw in [0020] discloses deleting data from storage location following migration and updating information in a database, however, Mani, Shaw, and Dossing do not explicitly disclose:
deleting a reconcile database associated with the first migration solution.
The Araki reference discloses deleting a reconcile database associated with a first migration solution (Araki in [0019] and [0020] discloses reconcile operation updates tapes with the deletion and/or renaming of stub files on the primary storage, deletion is recorded in a reconcile database, file path of a deleted stub file recorded in the reconcile database; Araki in [0032] discloses tracking when stub files are deleted, update reconcile database with the delete event);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki, to have combined Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki. The motivation to combine Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki would be to automatically reconciling data by updating data migration records in a reconciling database (Araki: [0001] and [0003]).
With respect to claim 15, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer program product of claim 10, Mani in [0065] discloses deleting data stored within a file system and Shaw in [0020] discloses deleting data from storage location following migration and updating information in a database, however, Mani, Shaw, and Dossing do not explicitly disclose:
deleting a reconcile database associated with the first migration solution.
The Araki reference discloses deleting a reconcile database associated with a first migration solution (Araki in [0019] and [0020] discloses reconcile operation updates tapes with the deletion and/or renaming of stub files on the primary storage, deletion is recorded in a reconcile database, file path of a deleted stub file recorded in the reconcile database; Araki in [0032] discloses tracking when stub files are deleted, update reconcile database with the delete event);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki, to have combined Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki. The motivation to combine Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki would be to automatically reconciling data by updating data migration records in a reconciling database (Araki: [0001] and [0003]).
With respect to claim 20, Mani in view of Shaw and in further view of Dossing discloses the computer system of claim 16, Mani in [0065] discloses deleting data stored within a file system and Shaw in [0020] discloses deleting data from storage location following migration and updating information in a database, however, Mani, Shaw, and Dossing do not explicitly disclose:
deleting a reconcile database associated with the first migration solution.
The Araki reference discloses deleting a reconcile database associated with a first migration solution (Araki in [0019] and [0020] discloses reconcile operation updates tapes with the deletion and/or renaming of stub files on the primary storage, deletion is recorded in a reconcile database, file path of a deleted stub file recorded in the reconcile database; Araki in [0032] discloses tracking when stub files are deleted, update reconcile database with the delete event);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki, to have combined Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki. The motivation to combine Mani, Shaw, Dossing, and Araki would be to automatically reconciling data by updating data migration records in a reconciling database (Araki: [0001] and [0003]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZWANUL MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights