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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on September 26, 2025, claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 09/26/2025. In this action claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polimera et al. (US Pub. No. 20230109510) and Dornemann et al. (US Pub. No. 20230124827) and Yadav et al. (US Pub. No. 20230094628) in further view of Bhagi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220292187). The Bhagi et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of performing a filtering of file data using a storage device access data structure to determine filtered file data to be provided based on restriction to the first storage device of the backup storage system by the application.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 15, applicant argues “As a practical matter, the human mind is not equipped to perform this method. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The method, as claimed, requires generating a virtual file system that includes an organization of storage location attributes to enable an application, executing on a production host, to access data, and enabling access to a file based backup (FBB) by obtaining read requests from the applications, filtering file data based on restrictions by the application to access one of the storage devices, providing the filtered data based on the restriction, and processing the filtered data. As a result of the accumulation of steps, the method, as a whole, cannot be performed by a human mind without the use of a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).”
Examiner’s Reply:
The newly added filtering steps are performed in the human by using computer as a tool.
Accessing restricted backups in a database is made possible because of the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 16, applicant argues “Specifically, the independent claims, as amended, integrate all concepts therein into the practical applications. As to amended independent claims 1, 11, and 20, the concepts therein are integrated into a practical application of providing access to data in file based backups to an application executing in a production host. Thus, like the patent at issue in Enfish, the concepts in the claims are integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Applicant argues that the amended claims comprises statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction or mental process (eg requesting backup data from a database), then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for a searching for backup data (being used a generic tools). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claims is generally linking it to a computer environment, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 17, applicant argues “The Examiner has failed to consider the additional elements as a whole. As such, Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice Test can be answered with a "yes", and the rejection should be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2106(I)(B). In view of the above, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Accessing backup copies is well-known-routine, and conventional.
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 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-6, 9, 11-16 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the method (claims 1-6 and 9), system (claims 11-16), computer-readable medium (claim 20) is/are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
generating a set of search results associated with the search request, wherein the set of search results comprises a first search result associated with a first file in a first FBB and a second search result associated with a second file in a second FBB, wherein the first FBB comprises first file data and a first FBB metadata file, wherein the second FBB comprises second file data and a second FBB metadata file, wherein the first FBB metadata file comprises a plurality of root paths for a file system of the first FBB, and wherein the first FBB and the second FBB are stored in the backup storage system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate search results);
performing a first attribute analysis for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to perform an analysis);
performing a second attribute analysis for the second search result using the second FBB metadata file to identify second storage location attributes of the second file (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to perform an analysis);
generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes,
wherein the virtual system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate a file system);
performing a storage analysis on the FBB metadata file to identify a first storage device in and a second storage device the backup storage system storing the FBB (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a storage device);
performing a filtering of file data using a storage device access data structure to determine filtered file data to be provided based on restriction to the first storage device of the backup storage system by the application (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining file data).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 11, and 20:
obtaining, by a FBB metadata file manager operating in a production host and from an application executing in the production host, a search request for file data stored in a backup storage system, wherein the search request is associated with a user in response to the search request (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to obtaining a data request);
displaying the search results (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to displaying search data);
wherein enabling access to the FBB comprises:
obtaining, from the application, a read request for the first file via the set of search results (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to obtaining a read request);
accessing, via a driver of the production host and using the FBB virtual file system, the first FBB metadata file (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to accessing metadata);
based on the storage analysis, obtaining file data from the backup storage system corresponding to the first file (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to obtaining file data);
providing the filtered file data to the application (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to providing file data);
processing, by the application, the filtered file data after obtaining the file data from the FBB metadata file manager to obtain processed data (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to processing filtered file data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2 and 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
the method of claim 1, wherein the set of search results are filtered based on data accessible to the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate search results).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
in response to the second search request: generating a second set of search results associated with the second search request, wherein the second set of search results comprises a third search result associated with a third file in the first FBB and a fourth search result associated with a fourth file in a second FBB (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate search results).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
obtaining, by the FBB metadata file manager, a second search request for file data stored in the backup storage system (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to obtaining a data request);
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the FBB virtual file system specifies storage locations associated with each of the second set of search results (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate search results).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the FBB metadata file manager generates a second FBB virtual file system in response to the second search request, and wherein the second FBB virtual file system specifies storage locations associated with each of the second set of search results (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate a file system).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the first storage location attributes comprise at least one of: a file identifier attribute of the first file, a parent file identifier of the first file and a container identifier, a file size of the first file, a hash value of the first file, and an offset of the first file (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to perform an analysis).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the file data comprises data tags (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to perform an analysis).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polimera et al. (US Pub. No. 20230109510) and Dornemann et al. (US Pub. No. 20230124827) and Yadav et al. (US Pub. No. 20230094628) in further view of Bhagi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220292187).
With respect to claim 1, Polimera et al. teaches a method for managing access to file based backups (FBBs), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a FBB metadata file manager operating in a production host and from an application executing in the production host, a search request for file data stored in a backup storage system, wherein the search request is associated with a user (Paragraph 170 discloses search criteria can be specified by a user through user interface 158 of storage manager 140 and Paragraph 178 discloses search capability for data in the system, such as data stored in secondary storage devices 108 (e.g., backups, archives, or other secondary copies 116));
in response to the search request:
generating a set of search results associated with the search request, wherein the set of search results comprises a first search result associated with a first file in a first FBB and a second search result associated with a second file in a second FBB,
wherein the first FBB comprises first file data and a first FBB metadata file,
wherein the second FBB comprises second file data and a second FBB metadata file,
wherein the first FBB metadata file comprises a plurality of root paths for a file system of the first FBB, and
wherein the first FBB and the second FBB are stored in the backup storage system (Paragraph 169 discloses identify files or other data objects based on content (e.g., user-defined keywords or phrases, other keywords/phrases that are not defined by a user, etc.), and/or metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.). Content indexes may be searched and search results may be restored and Paragraph 93 discloses data path information specifying what components to communicate with or access in carrying out an operation);
displaying the set of search results (Paragraph 114 discloses Storage manager 140 may track information that permits it to select, designate, or otherwise identify content indices, deduplication databases, or similar databases or resources or data sets within its information management cell (or another cell) to be searched in response to certain queries. Such queries may be entered by the user by interacting with user interface 158). Polimera et al. does not explicitly disclose performing a first attribute analysis for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file.
However, Dornemann et al. teaches performing a first attribute analysis (Paragraph 69 discloses analyze, and/or process data and metadata) for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file (Paragraph 77 discloses location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure);
performing a second attribute analysis (Paragraph 69 discloses analyze, and/or process data and metadata) for the second search result using the second FBB metadata file to identify second storage location attributes of the second file (Paragraph 77 discloses location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. with Dornemann et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Dornemann et al. Paragraph(s) 6-11.
Polimera et al. as modified by Dornemann et al. does not explicitly disclose generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes, wherein the virtual file system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system.
However, Yadav et al. teaches generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes,
wherein the virtual file system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system (Paragraph 24 discloses virtual file system that specifies the files in the file based backup and the storage location in the backup storage system and Parargaph 46 discloses relevant metadata attributes);
enabling access to the FBB virtual file system by an application via the set of search
results,
wherein the FBB metadata file manager provides the file data to the application
from the backup storage system using the virtual file system based on the
enabled access (Paragraph 74 discloses generation of the temporary storage device results in an update to the FBB virtual file system such that the application may access the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system), and
wherein enabling access to the FBB comprises:
obtaining, from the application, a read request for the first file via the set of search results (Paragraph 74 discoses the access includes allowing the application to read from, write to, and/or otherwise modify the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system);
accessing, via a driver of the production host and using the FBB virtual file system, the first FBB metadata file (Paragraph 74 discoses the access includes allowing the application to read from, write to, and/or otherwise modify the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system);
performing a storage analysis on the FBB metadata file to identify a first storage device and a second storage device in the backup storage system storing the FBB (Paragraph 63 discloses FBB metadata file manager (or other entity) may analyze the FBBs stored in the backup storage system to identify a FBB that corresponds to the requested file system and/or point in time);
based on the storage analysis, obtaining the filtered file data from the backup storage system corresponding to the first file (Paragraph 63 discloses FBB metadata file manager (or other entity) may analyze the FBBs stored in the backup storage system to identify a FBB that corresponds to the requested file system and/or point in time); and
providing the filtered file data to the application (Paragraph 68 discloses a copy of the requested data may be generated and provided to the application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. and Dornemann et al. with Yadav et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Yadav et al. Paragraph(s) 2-5.
Polimera et al. as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. does not disclose performing a filtering of file data using a storage device access data structure to determine filtered file data to be provided based on restriction to the first storage device of the backup storage system by the application.
However, Bhagi et al. teaches performing a filtering of file data using a storage device access data structure to determine filtered file data to be provided based on restriction to the first storage device of the backup storage system by the application (Paragraph 275 discloses filter driver cannot authenticate and/or authorize the application or process, the filter driver may prevent the application and/or process from accessing, or submitting further requests to, the media agent. Where the filter driver authenticates and/or authorizes the requesting application or process, the filter driver may pass the requested operation on to the media agent, which may then perform the requested operation and Paragraph 296 discloses there may be restrictions in place that prohibit external devices (e.g., the secondary storage computing device 312) from reading the files and/or directories of the client computing device 306.);
processing, by the application, the filtered file data after obtaining the file data from the FBB metadata file manager to obtain processed data (Paragraph 275 discloses filter driver cannot authenticate and/or authorize the application or process, the filter driver may prevent the application and/or process from accessing, or submitting further requests to, the media agent. Where the filter driver authenticates and/or authorizes the requesting application or process, the filter driver may pass the requested operation on to the media agent, which may then perform the requested operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. and Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. with Bhagi et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Bhagi et al. Paragraph(s) 4-10.
The Polimera et al. reference as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. and Bhagi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Yadav et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of search results are filtered based on data accessible to the user (Paragraph 96 discloses access is enabled to the subset of the FBB that the authenticated entity has permission to access, based on the access control information). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Polimera et al. reference and the Yadav et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 2.
The Polimera et al. reference as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. and Bhagi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Yadav et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, by the FBB metadata file manager, a second search request for file data stored in the backup storage system (Paragraph 62 discloses the FBB mount request specifies mounting a subset of the file system of the FBB (which may be referred to as a subset of the FBB) in the production host environment such that the application has access to the data (e.g., files) in the FB);
in response to the second search request:
generating a second set of search results associated with the second search request, wherein the second set of search results comprises a third search result associated with a third file in the first FBB and a fourth search result associated with a fourth file in a second FBB (Paragraph 62 discloses the FBB mount request specifies mounting a subset of the file system of the FBB (which may be referred to as a subset of the FBB) in the production host environment such that the application has access to the data (e.g., files) in the FB). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Polimera et al. reference and the Yadav et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 3.
The Polimera et al. reference as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. and Bhagi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3. With respect to claim 4, Yadav et al. teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the FBB virtual file system specifies storage locations associated with each of the second set of search results (Paragraph 67 discloses identify the file(s), the storage location of the data corresponding to the file(s), and send API requests to the backup storage system to obtain the specified data). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 3 provided above, combining the Polimera et al. reference and the Yadav et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 4.
The Polimera et al. reference as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. and Bhagi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3. With respect to claim 5, Yadav et al. teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the FBB metadata file manager generates a second FBB virtual file system in response to the second search request, and wherein the second FBB virtual file system specifies storage locations associated with each of the second set of search results (Paragraph 50 discloses each of the backup storage systems (150) stores FBBs. The FBBs may be backups for file systems. The file systems may be based on files used by the applications (132)). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 3 provided above, combining the Polimera et al. reference and the Yadav et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 4.
The Polimera et al. reference as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. and Bhagi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 6, Yadav et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first storage location attributes comprise at least one of:
a file identifier attribute of the first file, a parent file identifier of the first file and a container identifier, a file size of the first file, a hash value of the first file, and an offset of the first file (Paragraph 55 discloses attributes (204A, 204N) include, but are not limited to: a file identifier, a parent file identifier, a container identifier, a file size, a hash value of the file data, a checksum value of the file data, a header size, and an offset of the file in which is stored). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Polimera et al. reference and the Yadav et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 6.
The Polimera et al. reference as modified by Dornemann et al. and Yadav et al. and Bhagi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 9, Polimera et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the file data comprises data tags (Paragraph 225 discloses A classification rule may also be defined using other classification tags in the taxonomy).
With respect to claim 11, Polimera et al. teaches a system comprising:
a processor (Paragraph 66 discloses a processor); and
memory (Paragraph 66 discloses a memory) comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, perform a method comprising:
obtaining, by a FBB metadata file manager operating in a production host and from an application executing in the production host, a search request for file data stored in a backup storage system, wherein the search request is associated with a user (Paragraph 170 discloses search criteria can be specified by a user through user interface 158 of storage manager 140 and Paragraph 178 discloses search capability for data in the system, such as data stored in secondary storage devices 108 (e.g., backups, archives, or other secondary copies 116));
in response to the search request:
generating a set of search results associated with the search request, wherein the set of search results comprises a first search result associated with a first file in a first FBB and a second search result associated with a second file in a second FBB,
wherein the first FBB comprises file data and a first FBB metadata file,
wherein the second FBB comprises second file data and a second FBB metadata file,
wherein the first FBB metadata file comprises a plurality of root paths for a file system of the first FBB, and
wherein the first FBB and the second FBB are stored in the backup storage system (Paragraph 169 discloses identify files or other data objects based on content (e.g., user-defined keywords or phrases, other keywords/phrases that are not defined by a user, etc.), and/or metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.). Content indexes may be searched and search results may be restored and Paragraph 93 discloses data path information specifying what components to communicate with or access in carrying out an operation);
displaying the set of search results (Paragraph 114 discloses Storage manager 140 may track information that permits it to select, designate, or otherwise identify content indices, deduplication databases, or similar databases or resources or data sets within its information management cell (or another cell) to be searched in response to certain queries. Such queries may be entered by the user by interacting with user interface 158). Polimera et al. does not explicitly disclose performing a first attribute analysis for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file.
However, Dornemann et al. teaches performing a first attribute analysis (Paragraph 69 discloses analyze, and/or process data and metadata) for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file (Paragraph 77 discloses location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure);
performing a second attribute analysis (Paragraph 69 discloses analyze, and/or process data and metadata) for the second search result using the second FBB metadata file to identify second storage location attributes of the second file (Paragraph 77 discloses location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. with Dornemann et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Dornemann et al. Paragraph(s) 6-11.
Polimera et al. as modified by Dornemann et al. does not explicitly disclose generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes, wherein the virtual file system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system.
However, Yadav et al. teaches generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes,
wherein the virtual file system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system (Paragraph 24 discloses virtual file system that specifies the files in the file based backup and the storage location in the backup storage system and Parargaph 46 discloses relevant metadata attributes);
enabling access to the FBB virtual file system by an application via the set of search
results,
wherein the FBB metadata file manager provides the file data to the application
from the backup storage system using the virtual file system based on the
enabled access (Paragraph 74 discloses generation of the temporary storage device results in an update to the FBB virtual file system such that the application may access the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system), and
wherein enabling access to the FBB comprises:
obtaining, from the application, a read request for the first file via the set of search results (Paragraph 74 discloses the access includes allowing the application to read from, write to, and/or otherwise modify the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system);
accessing, via a driver of the production host and using the FBB virtual file system, the first FBB metadata file (Paragraph 74 discloses the access includes allowing the application to read from, write to, and/or otherwise modify the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system);
performing a storage analysis on the FBB metadata file to identify a storage device in the backup storage system storing the FBB (Paragraph 63 discloses FBB metadata file manager (or other entity) may analyze the FBBs stored in the backup storage system to identify a FBB that corresponds to the requested file system and/or point in time);
based on the storage analysis, obtaining file data from the backup storage system corresponding to the first file (Paragraph 63 discloses FBB metadata file manager (or other entity) may analyze the FBBs stored in the backup storage system to identify a FBB that corresponds to the requested file system and/or point in time); and
providing the file data to the application (Paragraph 68 discloses a copy of the requested data may be generated and provided to the application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. and Dornemann et al. with Yadav et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Yadav et al. Paragraph(s) 2-5.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
With respect to claim 20, Polimera et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for managing access to file based backups (FBBs), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a FBB metadata file manager operating in a production host and from an application executing in the production host, a search request for file data stored in a backup storage system, wherein the search request is associated with a user (Paragraph 170 discloses search criteria can be specified by a user through user interface 158 of storage manager 140 and Paragraph 178 discloses search capability for data in the system, such as data stored in secondary storage devices 108 (e.g., backups, archives, or other secondary copies 116));
in response to the search request:
generating a set of search results associated with the search request, wherein the set of search results comprises a first search result associated with a first file in a first FBB and a second search result associated with a second file in a second FBB,
wherein the first FBB comprises file data and a first FBB metadata file,
wherein the second FBB comprises second file data and a second FBB metadata file,
wherein the first FBB metadata file comprises a plurality of root paths for a file system of the first FBB, and
wherein the first FBB and the second FBB are stored in the backup storage system (Paragraph 169 discloses identify files or other data objects based on content (e.g., user-defined keywords or phrases, other keywords/phrases that are not defined by a user, etc.), and/or metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.). Content indexes may be searched and search results may be restored and Paragraph 93 discloses data path information specifying what components to communicate with or access in carrying out an operation);
displaying the set of search results (Paragraph 114 discloses Storage manager 140 may track information that permits it to select, designate, or otherwise identify content indices, deduplication databases, or similar databases or resources or data sets within its information management cell (or another cell) to be searched in response to certain queries. Such queries may be entered by the user by interacting with user interface 158). Polimera et al. does not explicitly disclose performing a first attribute analysis for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file.
However, Dornemann et al. teaches performing a first attribute analysis (Paragraph 69 discloses analyze, and/or process data and metadata) for the first search result using the first FBB metadata file to identify first storage location attributes of the first file (Paragraph 77 discloses location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure);
performing a second attribute analysis (Paragraph 69 discloses analyze, and/or process data and metadata) for the second search result using the second FBB metadata file to identify second storage location attributes of the second file (Paragraph 77 discloses location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. with Dornemann et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Dornemann et al. Paragraph(s) 6-11.
Polimera et al. as modified by Dornemann et al. does not explicitly disclose generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes, wherein the virtual file system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system.
However, Yadav et al. teaches generating a FBB virtual file system in the production host using the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes,
wherein the virtual file system comprises an organization of the first storage location attributes and the second storage location attributes to enable the application to access data of the file system (Paragraph 24 discloses virtual file system that specifies the files in the file based backup and the storage location in the backup storage system and Parargaph 46 discloses relevant metadata attributes);
enabling access to the FBB virtual file system by an application via the set of search
results,
wherein the FBB metadata file manager provides the file data to the application
from the backup storage system using the virtual file system based on the
enabled access (Paragraph 74 discloses generation of the temporary storage device results in an update to the FBB virtual file system such that the application may access the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system), and
wherein enabling access to the FBB comprises:
obtaining, from the application, a read request for the first file via the set of search results (Paragraph 74 discoses the access includes allowing the application to read from, write to, and/or otherwise modify the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system);
accessing, via a driver of the production host and using the FBB virtual file system, the first FBB metadata file (Paragraph 74 discoses the access includes allowing the application to read from, write to, and/or otherwise modify the data in the temporary storage device via the FBB virtual file system);
performing a storage analysis on the FBB metadata file to identify a storage device in the backup storage system storing the FBB (Paragraph 63 discloses FBB metadata file manager (or other entity) may analyze the FBBs stored in the backup storage system to identify a FBB that corresponds to the requested file system and/or point in time);
based on the storage analysis, obtaining file data from the backup storage system corresponding to the first file (Paragraph 63 discloses FBB metadata file manager (or other entity) may analyze the FBBs stored in the backup storage system to identify a FBB that corresponds to the requested file system and/or point in time); and
providing the file data to the application (Paragraph 68 discloses a copy of the requested data may be generated and provided to the application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Polimera et al. and Dornemann et al. with Yadav et al. This would have improved access of a backup. See Yadav et al. Paragraph(s) 2-5.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20230094628 is directed to SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURING INSTANT ACCESS OF DATA IN FILE BASED BACKUPS IN A BACKUP STORAGE SYSTEM USING METADATA FILES [0002] a method for managing file based backups (FBBs). The method may include obtaining, by a FBB metadata file manager, a FBB mount request for a FBB mount of a FBB from an application, wherein the application is executing in a production host environment and the FBB is stored on backup storage; in response to the FBB mount request: enabling, by the FBB metadata file manager, access to a portion of the FBB by the application; notifying, by the FBB metadata file manager, a cyber sense device that the access is enabled; providing, by the FBB metadata file manager and to the cyber sense device, a storage location of the portion of the FBB for which access was enabled; receiving, by the FBB metadata file manager and from the cyber sense device, a security event notification; and performing, by the FBB metadata file manager and in response to the security event notification, a security action set.
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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154