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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 12-13, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., (US Publication No. 2008/0232592), hereinafter “Lee”, and further in view of Mu et al., (US Publication No. 2009/0276591), hereinafter “Mu”.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 17, Lee discloses
a receiving storage component in a storage platform to receive from a client, a service request and change data for a change to a primary volume [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 38-40, 44-49, 88-90],
the receiving storage component further to encrypt the change data to produce encrypted change data [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 38-40, 44-49, 88-90];
a primary storage component in the storage platform to store the encrypted change data to the primary volume [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 38-40, 44-49, 88-90], and to perform service requests targeting the primary volume [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 38-40, 44-49, 88-90],
Lee does not specifically disclose, however Mu teaches
the primary storage component further to transmit backup instructions, including the encrypted change data, to a backup storage component that is responsible for maintaining a backup copy of the primary volume [Mu, figures 1, 2A, paragraphs 36-37 and claim 1]; and
the backup storage component to receive the backup instructions and in response, to store the encrypted change data to the backup storage component [Mu, figures 1, 2A, paragraphs 36-37 and claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting the encrypted change data to a backup storage motivated by keeping the data secure. It would have been obvious to combine Mu with Lee as both relate to storage of data and keeping the data secure.
Regarding claims 2, 13, 18, Lee-Mu further discloses
wherein: the receiving storage component is the primary storage component [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 38-40, 44-49, 88-90]; and
the primary storage component is further to transmit the encrypted change data to the backup storage component with the backup instructions [Mu, figures 1, 2A, paragraphs 36-37 and claim 1].
Regarding claim 20, Lee-Mu further discloses
receive a service request and the nonencrypted copy of the data for a change to the primary volume [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 38-40, 44-49, 88-90].
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Mu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osaki et al., (US Publication No. 2006/0005048), hereinafter “Osaki”.
Regarding claim 3, Lee-Mu does not specifically disclose, however Osaki teaches
wherein the receiving storage component is not the primary storage component, and the receiving storage component is further to transmit a modified service request to the primary storage component, the modified service request including the encrypted change data but not including the change data [Osaki, paragraphs 59-65].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include encrypting data and transmitting to a backup storage system in order to protect the data while ensuring redundant protection for the data. It would have been obvious to combine Osaki with Lee-Mu as all arts relate to storage of data and protecting the data.
Regarding claims 4, 15, Lee-Mu-Osaki further discloses
wherein the receiving storage component is neither the primary storage component nor the backup storage component [Osaki, paragraphs 59-65], and the backup instructions include the encrypted change data from the receiving storage component [Osaki, paragraphs 59-65].
Regarding claims 5, 16, Lee-Mu-Osaki further discloses
wherein the backup storage component is to retain the encrypted change data after transmitting the encrypted change data to the primary storage component; and the backup instructions do not include the change data [Osaki, paragraphs 59-65].
Regarding claim 8, Lee-Mu-Osaki further discloses
wherein the primary volume is a virtual volume [Osaki, paragraphs 88-90, virtual volume], and the primary storage component storing the encrypted change data comprises the primary storage component recording where the encrypted change data may be found in backend media associated with the primary storage component [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 86-90].
Regarding claim 9, Lee-Mu-Osaki further discloses
wherein: the primary storage component comprises a first processing unit that is resident in a first server and controls first backend media storing content associated with the primary volume; and the backup storage component comprises a second processing unit that is resident in a second server and controls second backend media storing content associated with the backup copy of the primary volume [Osaki, figure 1, paragraphs 33-39].
Regarding claim 10, Lee-Mu-Osaki further discloses
wherein the primary storage component is further to transmit the backup instructions through a data network to the backup storage component [Osaki, Abstract, figures 1, 13, paragraphs 33-39, 88].
Regarding claim 11, Lee-Mu-Osaki further discloses
wherein only the receiving storage component encrypts the change data through transmission of the encrypted change data on the data network and storage of the encrypted change data to the primary volume and the backup copy of the primary volume [Osaki, Abstract, figures 1, paragraphs 33-39].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Mu-Osaki as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Becker-Szendy et al., (US Publication No. 2005/0114291), hereinafter “Becker-Szendy”.
Regarding claim 6, Lee-Mu-Osaki does not specifically disclose, however Becker-Szendy teaches
wherein the modified service request includes metadata identifying a service requested by the service request, and the metadata is encrypted separately from the change data [Becker-Szendy, paragraph 45].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include encrypting the data and metadata separately in order to be able to provide the metadata to a user without providing the data in order to maintain security of the data. It would have been obvious to combine Becker-Szendy with Lee-Mu-Osaki as all arts relate to security and storage of data.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Mu-Osaki-Becker-Szendy as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Naslund et al., (US Publication No. 2013/0117824), hereinafter “Naslund”.
Regarding claim 7, Lee-Mu-Osaki-Becker-Szendy does not specifically disclose, however Naslund teaches
wherein the metadata is encrypted using an Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) process that treats the encrypted change data as associated data that is authenticated but not further encrypted [Naslund, paragraphs 52-56].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data in order to protect the security of the data and the metadata. It would have been obvious to combine Naslund with Lee-Mu-Osaki- Becker-Szendy as all arts relate to security and storage of data.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Mu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Becker-Szendy et al., (US Publication No. 2005/0114291), hereinafter “Becker-Szendy”.
Regarding claim 14, Lee-Mu does not specifically disclose, however Becker-Szendy teaches
wherein the modified service request includes metadata identifying a service requested by the service request, and the metadata is encrypted separately from the change data [Becker-Szendy, paragraph 45].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include encrypting the data and metadata separately in order to be able to provide the metadata to a user without providing the data in order to maintain security of the data. It would have been obvious to combine Becker-Szendy with Lee-Mu as all arts relate to security and storage of data.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Mu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Osaki.
Regarding claim 19, Lee-Mu further discloses
change data may be found in backend media associated with the primary storage component [Lee, figure 1, paragraphs 86-90].
Lee-Mu does not explicitly disclose, however Osaki teaches
wherein the primary volume is a virtual volume [Osaki, paragraph 88].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include using a virtual volume in order to provide options for maintaining the security of a system. It would have been obvious to combine Osaki’s virtual volume with Lee-Mu’s backup systems as all arts relate to the same concepts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433