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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 02/10/2026. Claims 1, 13, 14 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed on 02/10/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the term "processing device" is not a generic placeholder or nonce term. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, a processing device denotes a well understood class of structural components, such as processors or computing devices capable of executing instructions. The Office Action itself acknowledges that the specification describes the processing device as a general-purpose processor, confirming that the term connotes structure rather than serving as a purely functional placeholder. … such language does not invoke § 112(f) where, as here, the claim term itself conveys recognized structure. (Arg./Rem., Page 7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the term “processor” or similar terms may, in some contexts, connote structure, the Federal Circuit has made clear that generic terms such as “device,” “module,” or “mechanism” may invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) when used as a substitute for “means” and when they fail to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed functions. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC; Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp.. Here, the claim recites a “processing device configured to” perform a series of complex operations, including operating an object store service as a front-end to a bucket, migrating content between object stores, and dynamically switching object store operations between different storage systems. These functions go well beyond basic data processing and instead correspond to high-level system orchestration and migration control. The term “processing device” does not specify any particular structure, architecture, or algorithm for performing these functions and is therefore used as a generic placeholder for any device capable of achieving the recited results. The Examiner maintains that the term “device” has no known corresponding structure and is a generic placeholder (see MPEP 2181). Merely adding the term “processing” to “device” does not transform the device into a term that convey a recognized structure. Accordingly, the claim interpretation under 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chang fails to describe an object store service that itself performs the object store operations at the first object store. … In Chang, object store operations are performed by the underlying object stores in response to client-originated requests that are routed by the storage server. Chang does not disclose that the storage server or migration management module itself performs object store operations at the first object store. Nor does Chang disclose that object store operations are performed by the storage server as the acting entity. (Arg./Rem., Page 7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, the phrase “perform object store operations” encompasses not only direct physical execution of storage operations, but also systems that receive requests, determine how such requests are to be handled, and cause the requested operations to be executed (including via proxying or delegation). See MPEP §2111. In Chang, the storage server (including the migration management module) receives object store requests from a client, evaluates migration state and access control conditions, and conditionally executes the requested operation by either (i) performing the operation locally at the destination storage, (ii) proxying the request to the source object store, or (iii) modifying or blocking the response. Thus, Chang’s storage server is not a passive conduit, but rather actively controls and effectuates the execution of object store operations. It is well established that functional claim language is satisfied where the prior art structure is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP §2114; see also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (holding that a prior art structure that is capable of performing the claimed function meets the limitation). Additionally, the Federal Circuit has consistently held that claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and should not be narrowly limited to a preferred implementation. See MPEP §2111; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054. Applicant’s argument improperly imports a limitation requiring direct, non-delegated execution, which is not recited in the claims. Applicant’s argument incorrectly assumes, if execution is delegated, the service is not performing the operation. This is not technically or legally correct. Since Chang discloses a storage server that receives, processes, and causes execution of object store operations—whether locally or via proxy—it teaches or at least renders obvious the claimed “object store service performs object store operations.” Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a processing device” couple with functional language “operate an object store service”, “migrate content”, “issue subsequent object store operations”, “receive indications”, “indicate to the one or more applications”, “receive credentials”, “direct request”, “merge content” in Claims 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: in para 0058, “Processing device 104 (or controller 101) represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 13-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0344752 (Chang et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang teaches a system comprising: a processing device configured to: operate an object store service as a front-end to a bucket on a first object store, wherein the object store service performs object store operations for the bucket at the first object store ([Fig. 3, ¶ 0034], a remote S3-compatible server [i.e., first object store] can play the role of the first cloud and can be regarded as the source of the data migration. For example, before the first time point T1, the user may access (e.g. read or write) data in the remote S3-compatible server. [Fig. 4, ¶ 0039], The user can access the remote S3-compatible server and the storage server 10 through a client device such as the S3 client, respectively. For example, each of the remote S3-compatible server and the storage server 10 can provide Simple Storage Service (S3) and can be S3-compatible, and more particularly, can provide object storage, for handling large amounts of unstructured data, …each of the remote S3-compatible server and the storage server 10 can be configured to store one or more objects in a bucket (e.g. a container for objects), and any object of the one or more objects may consist of a file and optionally any metadata that describes this file);
migrate content of the bucket from the first object store to a second object store, wherein operations to store additional content to the bucket are issued to the second object store ([Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0034-0035], performing S3 seamless migration using index objects …The storage server 10 can play the role of the second cloud and can be regarded as the destination of the data migration, and a remote S3-compatible server can play the role of the first cloud and can be regarded as the source of the data migration. In response to a request of migrating user data of the user of the storage server 10 from the remote S3-compatible server into the storage server 10…the destination such as the storage server 10 can start the migration at the first time point T1. After the first time point T1, when the user sends any other request to the destination such as the storage server 10 to try making the any change of the any normal object, the storage server 10 can selectively proxy (e.g. forward) the any other request to the source such as the remote S3-compatible server and proxy (e.g. forward) a response corresponding to the any other request from the source to the user… During the data stage (e.g. DATA stage) after the index stage among the multiple stages, trigger one or more migration agents to migrate respective object data of a set of normal objects among the multiple normal objects from the remote S3-compatible server into the storage device layer of the storage server 10 as respective replacements of a set of index objects among the multiple index objects, for completing the migration of the user data. For example, the destination such as the storage server 10 can start the data stage at the second time point T2, and finish the migration at the time point T3. Assume that, during the data stage, the user sends the any other request to the destination such as the storage server 10 to try making the any change of the any normal object. Similarly, the storage server 10 can selectively proxy (e.g. forward) the any other request to the source such as the remote S3-compatible server and proxy (e.g. forward) the response corresponding to the any other request from the source to the user. [¶¶ 0041-0042], During the migration of the user data, the source such as the remote S3-compatible server may comprise one or more buckets (e.g. one or more containers for objects) such as the remote bucket, and the destination such as the storage server 10 may comprise one or more buckets (e.g. one or more containers for objects)… Before migrating object data, the storage server 10 can set the bucket of the destination to have the same bucket name as the remote bucket name and have the same user credentials as the remote user credentials, and more particularly, have fake usage information such as information of fake usage, to be temporary usage information of the migration stage); and
upon completion of the migration, issue subsequent object store operations for the bucket to the second object store ([¶¶ 0042-0043] When a normal object among the multiple normal objects has been migrated into the destination or a certain operation regarding this normal object has been performed on the destination (e.g. either object data of this normal object is already migrated, or the user has overwritten this normal object), the normal object may exist in this bucket …Once the object data of the source object is migrated into the destination or the user overwrites the object data at the destination, the destination such as the storage server 10 can remove the temporary attributes … taking the normal object shown in the upper right of FIG. 5 as an example of the source object, when the object data of the source object is migrated into the destination or the user overwrites the object data at the destination, the storage server 10 can invalidate the index object playing the role of the representative of the normal object (e.g. by removing the temporary attributes thereof) and/or replace the index object with the normal object in the bucket of the destination).
Regarding Claim 2, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive indications from one or more applications that the one or more applications are ready for the migration to proceed, wherein the content of the bucket is migrated from the first object store to the second object store in response to receiving the indications ([Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0045-0055], In response to the request of migrating the user data from the remote S3-compatible server into the storage server 10, …the storage server 10 can perform pre-processing of the migration of the user data…. In Step S01, start S3 migration for a set of S3 users… In Step S02, migrate respective user credentials and respective settings of the set of S3 users…. In Step S04, for each bucket of the one or more buckets, migrate bucket ACL, bucket metadata… In Step S05, switch at least one endpoint for accessing the user data from at least one cluster of the remote S3-compatible server to at least one cluster of the storage server 10. … migrate object data of this object from the source to the destination).
Regarding Claim 4, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive credentials that allow the object store service access to the bucket of the first object store and for storing to a bucket of the second object store ([¶ 0042] Before migrating object data of any index object of the aforementioned at least one portion of the multiple index objects, the storage server 10 can set the bucket of the destination to have the same bucket name as the remote bucket name and have the same user credentials as the remote user credentials (e.g. the user credentials of the remote bucket). [Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0047-0048] pre-processing may comprise… In Step S02, migrate respective user credentials and respective settings of the set of S3 users. …In Step S03, for each user of the set of users, create one or more buckets thereof at the destination and set up associated migration information. For example, the migration information may comprise proxy parameters, such as remote user credentials for proxying).
Regarding Claim 5, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the object store service utilizes access control lists as an initial set of users with permissions to access the bucket through the object store service ([¶ 0035] In response to a request of migrating user data of the user of the storage server from the remote S3-compatible server into the storage server, create and store multiple index objects into a storage device layer of the storage server to be respective representatives of multiple normal objects of the user data at the storage server, and migrate respective Access Control Lists (ACLs) of the multiple normal objects to the storage server to be respective ACLs of the multiple index objects, as if the multiple index objects are the multiple normal objects. [Fig. 8, ¶ 0066] In Step S14, in response to the bucket being not currently handled in the index stage …selectively return a local List-Objects result to the user according to whether an associated ACL check passes… If Yes, control the storage server to return the local List-Objects result to the user).
Regarding Claim 6, Chang teaches the system of claim 5, wherein user identities issuing requests for the bucket to the object store service are authenticated against an authentication infrastructure associated with the first object store ([Fig. 8, ¶¶ 0062-0068], In Step S10, the storage server receive a List-Objects request among the one or more List-Objects requests from the user… In Step S14, …selectively return a local List-Objects result to the user according to whether an associated ACL check passes… If Yes [i.e., authenticated], In Step S14B, return the local List-Objects result to the user).
Regarding Claim 8, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein operations to store subsequent content at the bucket are also stored at the first object store until the subsequent object store operations for the bucket are issued to the second object store ([¶ 0036], during the data stage, the user sends the any other request to the destination such as the storage server to try making the any change of the any normal object. Similarly, the storage server can selectively proxy (e.g. forward) the any other request to the source such as the remote S3-compatible server and proxy (e.g. forward) the response corresponding to the any other request from the source to the user. For example, when the any other request is a Get-Object request (e.g. “GetObject”), the storage server can proxy (e.g. forward) for this request between the user and the source, and more particularly, proxy (e.g. forward) this request for some index whose respective object data objects has not been migrated into the destination (e.g. during the migration, at the moment when the storage server receives the Get-Object request, respective object data of these index objects has not been copied to the destination and needs to be copied to the destination)).
Regarding Claim 9, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein to migrate content of the bucket from the first object store to the second object store, the processing device is further configured to: direct a first set of requests to retrieve a first portion of the content that has not been migrated to the first object store; direct a second set of requests to retrieve a second portion of the content that has been migrated to the second object store; and merge the content of the first object store and the content of the second object store for queries against datasets that are partially contained within either object store ([¶ 0035] In response to a request of migrating user data of the user of the storage server from the remote S3-compatible server into the storage server, during the index stage (e.g. INDEX stage) among multiple stages of the migration of the user data (e.g. migrating the user data from the remote S3-compatible server into the storage server, as requested by the user), the index-object-based s3 migration management module create and store multiple index objects (e.g. dummy objects having no object data) into a storage device layer of the storage server to be respective representatives of multiple normal objects of the user data at the storage server, …the index-object-based S3 migration management module can emulate the multiple normal objects with the multiple index objects. For example, the destination such as the storage server can start the migration at the first time point T1. After the first time point T1, when the user sends any other request to the destination such as the storage server to try making the any change of the any normal object, the storage server can selectively proxy (e.g. forward) the any other request to the source such as the remote S3-compatible server and proxy (e.g. forward) a response corresponding to the any other request from the source to the user. [¶ 0039], As shown in the lower half of FIG. 4, during the migration of the user data (labeled “Data” in the hollow arrow for brevity), the user may send request such as GET requests to the storage server to ask for partial data of the user data. The storage server can proxy (e.g. forward) the any other request such as the GET requests to the remote S3-compatible server, and proxy (e.g. forward) the response corresponding to the any other request, such as the partial data (labeled “Data” at some arrows depicted with dashed lines for brevity), from the remote S3-compatible server to the user).
Regarding Claim 10, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first object store is provided by a first cloud platform and the second object store is provided by a second cloud platform that is different than the first cloud platform, and wherein the object store service is configured to operate in infrastructure of the first cloud platform or the second cloud platform ([¶ 0034] The storage server can play the role of the second cloud and can be regarded as the destination of the data migration, and a remote S3-compatible server can play the role of the first cloud and can be regarded as the source of the data migration).
Regarding Claim 13, Chang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the object store service is configured to selectively perform object store operations for the bucket at the first object store and at the second object store ([¶ 0034-0035] The storage server 10 can play the role of the second cloud and can be regarded as the destination of the data migration, and a remote S3-compatible server can play the role of the first cloud and can be regarded as the source of the data migration. … create and store multiple index objects into a storage device layer of the storage server 10 to be respective representatives of multiple normal objects of the user data at the storage server 10, … the destination such as the storage server 10 can start the migration. …when the user sends any other request to the destination such as the storage server 10 to try making the any change of the any normal object, the storage server 10 can selectively proxy (e.g. forward) the any other request to the source such as the remote S3-compatible server. [¶ 0097], control the storage server 10 to selectively return local data of the object to the user. [¶ 0123] control the storage server 10 to selectively write data as the object data of the object. As aforementioned, Change demonstrate that object store operations are selectively performed either at the source object store [i.e., remote S3-compatible server] via proxying or at the destination object store [i.e., storage server 10] via local execution, thereby teaching the claimed limitation).
Regarding Claims 14, 15, and 17, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claims 1, 2, and 4, respectively, therefore, claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 2, and 4.
Regarding Claim 18, Chang teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the object store service is operated in infrastructure of the second object store ([¶ 0026] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a storage server 10. The storage server 10 comprises a host device 50, and comprises at least one storage device (e.g. one or more storage devices) such as a plurality of storage devices 90. The plurality of storage devices 90 are coupled to the host device 50. According to this embodiment, the host device 50 can be configured to control operations of the storage server 10, and the plurality of storage devices 90 can be configured to store information for the storage server 10).
Regarding Claim 20, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, claims 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Examiner further notes, Chang also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed by a processing device (Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0031-0032).
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.
Claims 3, 7, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of US 2012/0109940 (Ishii et al.).
Regarding Claim 3, Chang does not explicitly teach, however, Ishii teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the processing device is further configured to: indicate to the one or more applications whether the migration has completed ([Fig.2, ¶¶ 0051-0053] checks if there is free space in the storage device thereof and determines if migration needs to be executed. If it is determined that migration is needed, the document management server sends the file which is selected as needed to the file server. The file server receives the migration target file from the document management server and stores the file in the storage device and sends a completion notification to the document management server (S17). When having received the completion notification from the file server, the document management server sends a completion notification to the client apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ishii's migration completion notification to the teachings of Chang because such incorporation would be a predictable way to inform the user a confirmation of successfully completion of process.
Regarding Claim 7, although, Chang teaches in response to a request of migrating user data of a user of the storage server from a remote S3-compatible server into the storage server, during an index stage among multiple stages of the migration of the user data, …migrate respective Access Control Lists (ACLs) of the multiple normal objects to the storage server to be respective ACLs of the multiple index objects [¶ 0006], however, Chang does not explicitly teach, but Ishii teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive a first indication describing how to transform at least one of an identity list or access control list of the first object store by the object store service; and receive a second indication describing how to convert the at least one of the identity list or the access control list into at least one of a converted identity list or access control list for the content migrated to the second object store ([¶ 0014], If the file stored in the second storage apparatus is migrated to the first storage apparatus, the first search controller extracts, from first access control information based on the second access control information format set for the file, information which the first search controller is to use when creating a search index based on the migrated file, converts the extracted information to second access control information based on the first access control information format, and sets the converted information as information on the file in a search index of the first search controller. [Fig. 4, ¶ 0062], The specific ACL format access control sub-program performs an access control process on a file stored in the document management server 1100. Specifically, the specific ACL format access control sub-program 1171 manages information on an access permission operation or an access rejection operation for the files stored in the document management server 1100 in a format of an access control list (ACL). The specific ACL format access control sub-program 1171 defines ACL in a specific access control information format which is a second access control information format in the document management server 1100 and uses the ACL in the specific format for access control. [Fig. 5, ¶ 0068], an ACL conversion control program 2126 for converting an ACL format which is used in the specific access control sub-program 1171 in the document management server 1100 for performing security trimming of the search result in the search control program 2124 in the search server 2100 to an ACL format interpretable in the search server 2100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ishii's teachings of converting an ACL format which is used in the specific access control sub-program to the teachings of Chang, because such incorporation would have allowed access control of data in the migration destination after data file is migrated between computers (see, Ishii, ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claims 16 and 19, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claims 3 and 7, respectively, therefore, claims 16 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3 and 7.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of US 2022/0035574 (Cain).
Regarding Claim 11, Chang does not explicitly teach, however, Cain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first object store is a first locally-hosted storage system and the second object store is a second locally-hosted storage system that is different than the first locally-hosted storage system, wherein the object store service is configured to operate in infrastructure of the first locally-hosted storage system or the second locally-hosted storage system ([Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0057-0058] The data services provider 134 may also perform a migration operation. The migration may move data objects between different ones of the underlying storage within a virtual persistent volume (PV) 156, including between different local storage, between local and remote storage, between different remote storage, between different public cloud storage, between public cloud storage and non-public cloud storage (either local or remote), or between other combinations of underlying storage …the data services provider 134 may migrate the virtual PV 156 to a different computing system. For example, in some cases, it may be useful to migrate a virtual PV 156 to be close to a workload using the virtual PV 156. In an example scenario, the container orchestrator 122 may move the containerized application 124 to a different computing system (e.g., from source computing system 100 to destination computing system 110) for the sake of load balancing or another reason, and the virtual PV 156 may need to be migrated to be close to the containerized application 124. The data services provider 134 may also migrate some of the data in the virtual PV 156, such as migrating data objects that were local to the computing system 100 to the physical storage of the different computing system 110, which may be useful for maintaining storage locality and other performance characteristics of the virtual PV 156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cain's teachings of migration data object between different local storage to the teachings of Chang, because such incorporation would have allowed load balancing between computers.
Regarding Claim 12, Chang does not explicitly teach, however, Cain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first object store is a locally-hosted storage system and the second object store is a cloud platform, wherein the object store service is configured to operate in infrastructure of the locally-hosted storage system or the cloud platform ([Fig. 1, ¶ 0057] The data services provider may also perform a migration operation. The migration may move data objects between different ones of the underlying storage within a virtual persistent volume (PV), including between different local storage, between local and remote storage, between different remote storage, between different public cloud storage, between public cloud storage and non-public cloud storage (either local or remote), or between other combinations of underlying storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cain's teachings of migration data object between local storage to remote cloud storage to the teachings of Chang, because such incorporation would have improved data accessibility for remote users.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9206. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, ARIO ETIENNE can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A. MIAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457