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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite amended limitations “storing, in the second object store, a description of the update prior to copying of the data targeted by the update to the second object store; and processing, by the second object store, one or more requests for the data during the migration including using the description of the update stored in the second object store to apply the update after the data is copied to the second object store,” and it is unclear what this description of the update entails. The applicant’s specification [0256] discloses “In some embodiments, where the stored data object has not yet been copied from the first object store to the second object store, data describing the data update may be stored in the second object store. After the data object subject to the update has been copied to the second object store, the data describing the data update may be used to apply the data update to the subject data object.” However, there is no disclosure as to what this data describing the data update entails. Therefore, the claims are rejected as indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define what data describing the request entails. Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are also rejected for their dependencies on their respective independent claims. For examination purposes, any data that is stored and utilized for processing requests will be used to describe the description of the update.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “storing a tombstone record for the data in the second object store indicating that the data is deleted,” however, it is unclear which data is referenced as there is data recited in claims 6 and 16 as well as their respective independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the claims are rejected as indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define which data is being referenced by the claims.
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, 3, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0132849; hereinafter Xu) in view of Cannon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0282835; hereinafter Cannon).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method comprising:
receiving, a request to update data, wherein a migration of the data from a first object store to a second object store has been initiated {¶¶ [0031], [0039], [0044], [0046] object storage/object storage service with migration of data started between a first storage system and second storage system; a request for modification of location information of the data during migration}.
Xu fails to disclose, however, Cannon discloses:
storing, in the second object store, a description of the update prior to copying of the data targeted by the update to the second object store {¶¶ [0034]-[0040] metadata (e.g., such as description of the update) is stored at a second storage environment (e.g., such as a second object store) for data objects stored in a first storage environment before the data is copied/moved to the second storage environment}; and
processing, by the second object store, one or more requests for the data during the migration including using the description of the update stored in the second object store to apply the update after the data is copied to the second object store {¶¶ [0034]-[0040] the second storage environment processes data objects using the stored metadata during a request to migrate the data objects from the first storage environment to the second storage environment}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Xu and Cannon before him/her, to modify the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Cannon. The motivation for doing so would combine the data migration and metadata of Xu with the data migration and metadata of Cannon to yield the predictable results of using metadata during data migration for data tracking and integrity thereby preserving context, enhancing searchability and providing a faster migration.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xu and Cannon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more requests are processed by the second object store by accessing requested data from the first object store {Xu: ¶¶ [0031], [0044] object storage/object storage service; [0060] the new/second storage system processes the access request by obtaining the data from the old/first storage system}.
Claim 11 contains corresponding limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xu and Cannon discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein processing the one or more requests for data from the first object store comprises processing, by the second object store, the one or more requests by accessing requested data from the first object store {Xu: ¶¶ [0031], [0044], [0060]}.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0132849; hereinafter Xu) in view of Cannon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0282835; hereinafter Cannon) and further in view of Motwani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0378626; hereinafter Motwani).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xu and Cannon discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose, however, Motwani discloses further comprising processing one or more data updates received during the migration by storing, during the migration, data for the one or more data updates in the second object store {¶¶ [0347]-[0353] storing data access request updates during migration in the second storage unit}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Xu, Cannon, and Motwani before him/her, to modify the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Motwani. The motivation for doing so would combine the data access request during data migration of Xu with the data access request during data migration of Motwani to provide dispersed servicing of data access requests during migration of data based on a storage status approach as disclosed by Motwani [0347].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xu and Cannon discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose however, Motwani discloses further comprising processing one or more data updates received during the migration by storing, during the migration, data for the one or more data updates in the first object store {¶¶ [0347]-[0353] storing updates during migration in the first storage unit}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Xu, Cannon, and Motwani before him/her, to modify the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Motwani. The motivation for doing so would combine the data access request during data migration of Xu with the data access request during data migration of Motwani to provide dispersed servicing of data access requests during migration of data based on a storage status approach as disclosed by Motwani [0347].
Claims 14 and 15 contain corresponding limitations as claims 4 and 5 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may be applied as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 have been considered and the applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The examiner presents a new grounds of rejection based upon the applicant's amendments to the claims. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The preceding rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166