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 .
Detailed Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/9/25 has been entered.
In amendments dated 9/9/25, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 20-21, canceled clams 10 and 19, and added no new claims. Claims 1-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are presented for examination.
Applicant is advised that the instant application is now being examined by Examiner Bruce Moser.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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, 11, and 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. The sixth limitation in each claim recites “wherein each of the first number of consumed storage resource objects and the quota number of storage resource objects is on the order of several thousands of storage resource objects.” Examiner did not find definitions for “on the order of” or “several” in the specification and the plain meanings of these terms in the art are “approximately” (see NPL attached definition Mirriam Webster 7/22/19, page 2 Entry 2 definition 11) and “more than two but fewer than many” (see NPL attached Mirriam Webster 2/18/23 page 4 Entry 2b), respectively. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how many consumed storage resource objects or the quota for said objects and these claims are indefinite.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 each recites monitoring a first number of consumed storage resource objects in a first storage system of a storage cluster, the consumed storage resource objects storing a system file and/or volume and snapshots of the system file and/or snapshots of the volume; determining a second number of remaining storage resource objects in the first storage system based on the first number of consumed storage resource objects and a performance of the first storage system, the first number and the second number providing a reference for obtaining a protection strategy for automatically creating the snapshots of the system file and/or the snapshots of the volume in the first storage system, the second number decreasing as the first number increases; determining a third number of snapshots to be created in the first storage system by a snapshot scheduler based on setting information of the snapshot scheduler; determining that the setting information of the snapshot scheduler is not feasible based on a sum of the first number of consumed storage resource objects and the third number of snapshots to be created being greater than a quota number of storage resource objects, having determined that the setting information of the snapshot scheduler is not feasible in the first storage system based on the sum of the first number and the third number being greater than the quota number of storage resource objects: reducing, by modifying the setting information, the sum of the first number of consumed storage resource objects and the third number of snapshots to be created to be less than or equal to the quota number of storage resource objects; further monitoring the first number of consumed storage resource objects in the first storage system of the storage cluster; and determining that the first number of consumed storage resource objects has reached the quota number of storage resource objects, again making the setting information of the snapshot scheduler not feasible in the first storage system. Monitoring consumed storage resource objects is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Determining a second number of storage resource objects, a third number of snapshots, determining that setting information is not feasible, and determining that the first number has reached a quota, are each evaluating and mental processes. Modifying setting information is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of wherein each of the first number of consumed storage resource objects and the quota number of storage resource objects is on the order of several thousands of storage resource objects, and a number or a quota of storage resource objects storing data is insignificant extra-solution activity; obtaining the protection strategy in accordance with the modified setting information of the snapshot scheduler, which is a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and having determined that the setting information of the snapshot scheduler is not feasible in the first storage system due to the first number of consumed storage resource objects having reached the quota number of storage resource objects, reducing the first number of consumed storage resource objects in the first storage system by migrating one or more of the consumed storage resource objects from the first storage system to a second storage system of the storage cluster, thereby obtaining more uniform utilization of storage resource objects across the storage cluster, and reducing a first number of consumed storage resource objects by migrating one or more of the consumed storage resource objects is a well-known function of a computer per MPEP 2106.05(g) and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 11 recites at least one processor and memory coupled to the at least one processor and claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are each generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification page 4 states “if a plurality of snapshots have been created for the system file and volume, it may be difficult for the user to calculate the number of storage objects that will be consumed or created next, and the user may not even realize that the number of storage resource objects in the system has been exhausted and no snapshots can be created,” and the following paragraph on pages 4-5 begins discussing how the invention addresses this problem. Some of these steps are recited in the claims but the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taken as a whole, storing data in a number or a quota of storage resource objects is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II, the data gathering step is recited broadly and amount to receiving data across a network per specification pages 3 and 5 and figure 1, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Migrating the consumed storage resource objects is routine and conventional activity per Yelheri et al (US 20220138151) paragraph 0226 (performing migration operations for snapshots to a different object store (different buckets within an object store 1516 in figure 15). The at least one processor, memory coupled to the at least one processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium are each still generic components of a computer system. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2 and 12 each recites wherein the first number comprises a number of snapshots of the system file and snapshots of the volume created by the snapshot scheduler for the system file and the volume, a number of snapshots storing data is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 3 and 13 each recites wherein the consumed storage resource objects are used for at least one of: a system file, snapshots of the system file, a volume, and snapshots of the volume, and storing data is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 4 and 14 each recites sending the first number and the second number to a user device, the first number and the second number being displayed by the user device, and sending data is recited broadly and amounts to sending data across a network per specification pages 3 and 5 and figure 1, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; and sending a prompt message to the user device, the prompt message being displayed by the user device when the sum of the first number and the third number is greater than the quota number, and sending data is recited broadly and amounts to sending data across a network per specification pages 3 and 5 and figure 1, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Claims 5 and 15 each recites when the sum of the third number and the first number is greater than the quota number, modifying the setting information of the snapshot scheduler in response to an input from a user device, so that the sum is reduced to less than or equal to the quota number, and modifying data is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claim 6 recites wherein the quota number is less than an upper-limit number of storage resource objects provided by the first storage system, and a quota of storage resource objects storing data is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 7 and 17 each recites wherein modifying the setting information of the snapshot scheduler comprises modifying at least one of the following items: a life cycle of a snapshot to be created; and a time interval of the snapshot to be created, and modifying data is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 8 and 18 each recites receiving, by the snapshot scheduler via an interface, a deletion identifier set for at least one consumed storage resource object, and receiving data is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per specification pages 3 and 5 and figure 1, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; deleting the at least one consumed storage resource object by the snapshot scheduler based on the deletion identifier, and deleting data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; and updating the second number with a number of the at least one consumed storage resource object that was deleted, and updating data is storing data which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Claim 9 recites receiving, by the snapshot scheduler, the deletion identifier set for the at least one consumed storage resource object via the interface when a frequency of use of the at least one consumed storage resource object is lower than a usage threshold, and receiving data is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per specification pages 3 and 5 and figure 1, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claim 21 recites wherein the setting information of the snapshot scheduler includes a life cycle, K, of a snapshot to be created, and a time interval, D, of the snapshot to be created, and wherein the determining the third number of snapshots to be created in the first storage system by the snapshot scheduler based on the setting information includes determining the third number, Nt, according to a formula expressed as: Nt = (K/D)N, wherein "N" corresponds to a positive integer greater than or equal to one (1), which is a mathematical calculation per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Chamarthy et al (20210117390) teaches managing snapshots based on churn data between the storage object and respective snapshots of said storage object, customers establish policies for scheduled time intervals for snapshots, moving snapshots to different storage tier based on said churn, does not teach measuring and determining numbers of snapshots and remaining snapshots in a storage space or a third number of snapshots based on the first two numbers, or migrating snapshots based on said determined numbers (paragraphs 0005, 0044-0047 figure 3); and
Crofton et al (US 20170331892) teaches managing storage for folders in cloud storage, teaches numbers for files and migrating files to accommodate storage based on space not on a number of files or snapshots, does not teach determining a third number for snapshots or migrating files based on such a third number (paragraphs 0003, 0032, 0078-0086 figures 4A-4F).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections to clams 1-17 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Venkatesan and Zhang and further in view of Vibhor, Applicant’s amendments overcome Venkatesan, Zhang’s, and Vibhor’s teachings, in particular a sum of a first number and third number of consumed storage objects being greater than a quote as Applicant asserts on pages 17-18 of his Remarks, and migrating snapshots to another storage system after determining that setting information is not feasible based on said sum. Regarding rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 15 of his Remarks Applicant asserts “the claimed method is expressly implemented in a "storage system" using a "processor", the recitation of which provides both a technological context and basis for the claim.” Examiner notes the recited storage system and processor are recited as generic components and the monitoring and determining actions are recited generally and use the computer as a tool. Applicant also asserts then elements of dynamic modification of "setting information of the snapshot scheduler", and (ii) migration of "consumed storage resource objects from the first storage system to a second storage system" address problems discussed in specification page 5. Examiner notes the limitations are recited broadly and lack inventive details showing an improvement in said drawbacks or a function of a computer and thus do not recite a practical application per MPEP 2106.04(d). Examiner further notes that migrating a snapshot is routine and conventional per Yelheri as shown above.
On page 16 Applicant notes the amendment "wherein each of the first number of consumed storage resource objects and the quota number of storage resource objects is on the order of several thousands of storage resource objects" and, while Examiner noted the indefiniteness of this limitation above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner also notes the “monitoring” and “determining” actions are still recited highly generally and in a computer environment and are still performed using a computer as a tool as noted above, and thus are still mental processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A and C).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 5/1/26
Prosecution Insights