DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/22/25 has been entered.
Remarks
The request for continuation was received on 7/22/25. Claims 1-27 are pending in the application. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18, 19, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 8,788,628), and further in view of Prahlad et al. (US 2016/0224429) and Yu (US 2003/0028506).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu, and further in view of Birdwell et al. (US 6,741,983).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 13, 17, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu, and further in view of Mathews et al. (US 2021/0342298).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18, 19, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 8,788,628), and further in view of Prahlad et al. (US 2016/0224429) and Yu (US 2003/0028506).
With respect to claim 1, Taylor teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a replication receiver, a replication transaction of data blocks of a snapshot of a logical entity in accordance with a start replication command of a replication protocol initiated by a client (Taylor, Col. 8 Li. 4-17, receiving a request from a client to store a 10 GB file … sends out metadata snapshots that indicate the existence and location of the data blocks & Col. 8 Li. 10-11, the cloud controller can … generate a set of corresponding metadata that indicates the respective disk addresses and CVAs for the file's data blocks);
writing, by the replication receiver, the data blocks to objects of an object store (Taylor, Col. 8 Li. 10-11, the cloud controller can already allocate a set of corresponding disk blocks and cloud files, and generate a set of corresponding metadata that indicates the respective disk addresses and CVAs for the file's data blocks);
accumulating, as the data blocks are received at the replication receiver, metadata locating the blocks to transitory storage at the replication receiver (Taylor, Col. 6 Li. 16-26, a set of caching storage devices (referred to as "cloud controllers") collectively cache, manage, and ensure data consistency for a set of data that is stored in a network storage system & Col. 8 Li. 10-11, the cloud controller can …generate a set of corresponding metadata that indicates the respective disk addresses and CVAs for the file's data blocks), wherein the transitory storage supports overwrite without copying of unchanged information (Taylor, Col. 12 Li. 11-21, For instance, the overlay metadata may facilitate accessing the virtual cloud file via a special filesystem directory that presents a view of the disparate data blocks as a single, consolidated cloud file that can be read and transferred. In many scenarios the cloud controller primarily maintains overlay metadata for data that has not yet been written out to a cloud file; in some embodiments, once the data has been uploaded to the cloud storage system, the cloud controller clears the overlay metadata and begins generating new overlay metadata to track changes destined for a subsequent set of cloud files.).
Taylor doesn't expressly discuss deferring construction of an index data structure until the replication transaction completes according to a complete replication command of the replication protocol received by the replication receiver prior to writing the index data structure to the object store, wherein the index data structure is constructed by (i) reading the accumulated metadata, and (ii) mapping a first address space of the snapshot to a second address space addressable by the client for the objects based on the accumulated metadata.
Prahlad teaches receiving, at a replication receiver, a replication transaction of data blocks of a snapshot of a logical entity (Prahlad, pa 0101, the snapshot agent within (or outside of) the media agent 112 creates the snapshot 415 of a primary volume of data, and sends the snapshot to the index agent.),
accumulating, as the data blocks are received at the replication receiver, metadata locating the blocks (Prahlad, pa 0102, In step 620, the index agent 420 receives or obtains context information associated with the snapshot. The index agent may query some or all of the data storage resources, such as a storage manager or jobs agent, to retrieve data associated with systems and applications that created the snapshot. For example, the index agent may query the Volume Snapshot Service (VSS) provider used to create the snapshot. The index agent may retrieve information for each of the individual files imaged by the snapshot, for the entire snapshot, or both. The application context information may include information about resources utilized by the snapshot agent (such as mount points), information from or about the file system and/or applications that created the snapshot, and so on.);
deferring construction of an index data structure until the replication transaction completes according to a complete replication command of the replication protocol received by the replication receiver prior to writing the index data structure to the object store (Prahlad, pa 0074, the system may leverage continuous data replication (CDR) or discrete data replication (DOR) when creating snapshots of a volume of data. CDR generates recovery points for a volume, which can be used as a point in time snapshot of a volume. & pa 0101, In step 610, an index agent receives a snapshot of a data set. For example, the snapshot agent within (or outside of) the media agent 112 creates the snapshot 415 of a primary volume of data, and sends the snapshot to the index agent. & pa 0105, In step 640, the system stores the received application context information in an index that identifies individual files from the data set imaged by the snapshot, and in step 650, stores the index to the storage media.), wherein the index data structure is constructed by (i) reading the accumulated metadata, and (ii) mapping a first address space of the snapshot to a second address space addressable by the client for the objects based on the accumulated metadata (Prahlad, pa 0106, The system then stores the snapshot and the associated information to a magnetic tape, named "tape4," at location "offset100-230" The system then updates an index, such as an index at a media agent that stored the snapshot, to include information associated the name of the tape with the name of the snapshot stored on the tape.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Taylor to have included the teachings of Prahlad because it creates a snapshot-based data source to allow data storage systems to be very flexible (Prahlad, pa 0071-0072).
Yu teaches deferring construction of an index data structure until the replication transaction completes according to a complete replication command of the replication protocol received by the replication receiver prior to writing the index data structure to the object store (Yu, pa 0029, , the index is begun to be built after expiration of the spaced apart time intervals 1, 3, 5 . . . during which a data burst is received & pa 0042, Accordingly, embodiments of the invention can defer building an index for a plurality of records in a respective burst until after storing the plurality of data records in the respective burst in the database. An analogous scenario may be seen in the evolution of cows. To ensure a cow eats the most available food, a cow first swallows food at fast pace without chewing, and stores the food inside its stomach. Later on, the cow ruminates cud at a slower pace. Examiner Note: this teaching indicates that a series of steps are grouped such that after that series of steps, an index may be built. The series of steps (data burst in this example, replication protocol in the claims) provide a complete command by expiration of the time interval)
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Taylor in view of Prahlad to have included the teachings of Yu because it allows for resources to be available for the index build process (Yu, pa 0008).
With respect to claim 5, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the logical entity is organized according to extents (Taylor, Col. 10 Li. 40-42, The modified data is then packaged into units that match the granularity of cloud files (e.g., into 32 MB segments)) and wherein the extents are organized in the objects according to a preferred size of the objects for the object store (Taylor, Col. 10 Li. 12-18, Variable-sized cloud files allow some level of customization to match network and application characteristics, but also involve additional complexity to manage the different sizes. Hence, in some embodiments the system reduces management overhead by using a single fixed cloud file size (e.g., 32 MB) throughout the cloud controllers and cloud storage system.).
With respect to claim 6, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data blocks are included in a first object of the object store different from a second object of the object store having the index data structure (Prahlad, pa 0100, the index 500 includes information associated with a data object named "Invention.txt." This information includes a location of the archive file for the data object at "archive!" and information identifying a mount point for the snapshot that imaged the data object, at "C://snap1/user1." The index 500 may contain information about some files imaged by a snapshot (such as certain files of interest), or may contain information about all the files imaged by the snapshot.).
With respect to claim 7, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising organizing the index data structure in a repository according to snapshot (Prahlad, pa 0106-0108, an example index entry may be as follows: [0107] Snapl D:/users, hardsnapB Tape4, offset! 00-230 [0108] The system may store the entry at the media agent or at other storage resources, such as a global manager. In addition, the system stores the entry along with the snapshot on the tape, to facilitate restoration of the data via the snapshot, effectively creating a copy of data (i.e., a data source), using a snapshot of the data).
With respect to claim 9, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein accumulating, as the data blocks are received at the replication receiver, the metadata locating the blocks to transitory storage further comprises recording the metadata in a database (Taylor, Col. 8 Li. 10-11, the cloud controller can …generate a set of corresponding metadata that indicates the respective disk addresses and CVAs for the file's data blocks).
With respect to claims 10, 14-16, and 18, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 1, 5-7, and 9, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium, and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claims 19, 23-25, and 27, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 1, 5-7, and 9, in the form of an apparatus comprising a network interface of a node having a processor executing a replication receiver (Taylor, Col. 22 Li. 32-34, servers 930-950 can generally include any node on a network including a mechanism for servicing requests from a client for computational and/or data storage resources), and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu, and further in view of Birdwell et al. (US 6,741,983).
With respect to claim 2, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu doesn’t expressly discuss wherein the index data structure is constructed such that a maximum index structure depth is maintained to locate any of the data blocks.
Birdwell teaches wherein the index data structure is constructed such that a maximum index structure depth is maintained to locate any of the data blocks (Birdwell, Col. 27 Li. 35-40, The tree has a maximum depth of 11 (levels 0 through 10) with most branches having a length of 7 to 9. Similar results have been obtained for 400,000 stored DNA profiles where the tree's maximum depth was 13.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu to have included the teachings of Birdwell because this creates a tree that is balanced and provides the average and worse case search times (Birdwell, Col. 27 Li. 35-45).
With respect to claim 3, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the maximum index structure depth is maintained by controlling a branch factor for internal nodes of the index data structure (Birdwell, Col. 27 Li. 35-40, The tree has a maximum depth of 11 (levels 0 through 10) with most branches having a length of 7 to 9. Similar results have been obtained for 400,000 stored DNA profiles where the tree's maximum depth was 13.).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 2 and 3, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium, and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claims 20 and 21, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 2 and 3, in the form of an apparatus, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 13, 17, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu, and further in view of Mathews et al. (US 2021/0342298).
With respect to claim 4, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Mathews teaches wherein internal nodes of the index data structure include keys as a list of offsets in the first address space, wherein each key is associated with a corresponding reference to a child node (Mathews, pa 0052, The tree structure comprises a plurality of logical page nodes representing the plurality of storage objects. The plurality of logical page nodes specify respective logical page addresses in a logical address space of the storage system, arrays of pointers to one or more other logical page addresses in the logical address space, snapshot group identifiers for snapshot groups in the storage system, and logical extent offsets in the logical address space.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu with the teachings of Mathews because it ensures data is not stored in a duplicative manner (Mathews, pa 0002).
With respect to claim 8, Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu doesn’t expressly discuss wherein a first leaf node of the index data structure identifies a first object of the object store having the data blocks of the snapshot, and wherein a second leaf node of another index data structure identifies a second object of the object store having data blocks changed from the snapshot.
Mathews teaches wherein a first leaf node of the index data structure identifies a first object of the object store having the data blocks of the snapshot, and wherein a second leaf node of another index data structure identifies a second object of the object store having data blocks changed from the snapshot (Mathews, pa 0046, The tree structure is assumed to comprise a plurality of logical page nodes representing the plurality of storage objects.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Taylor in view of Prahlad and Yu with the teachings of Mathews because it ensures data is not stored in a duplicative manner (Mathews, pa 0002).
With respect to claims 13 and 17, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 4 and 8, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium, and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claims 22 and 26, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 4 and 8, in the form of an apparatus, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 rejections
Applicant seems to argue a newly amended limitation. Applicant’s amendment has rendered the previous rejection moot. Upon further consideration of the amendment, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Yu (US 2003/0028506).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY N ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3566. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/BRITTANY N ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169