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 .
This office action is in response to claims filed 09/29/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations "A method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, comprising:” “determining, based at least in part on the first internet address, whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance", as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “identifying a first active table whose ownership is not defined in a central repository, the first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance,” “determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table;” and “and in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance, identifying a first owner of the first active table based at least in part on a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the “identifying a first active table,” “determining, based on a write long,” and “identifying a first owner” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address; determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address; determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 3, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “in response to identifying the first owner, adding the first owner to the central repository as owner of the first active table”, i.e., updating the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “identifying a plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository, each second active table deployed as part of a corresponding second cloud computing instance, and for each second active table of the plurality of second active tables: comparing the third timestamp to a creation time of the second cloud computing instance identified by the second cloud computing instance identifier;” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table; determining a second cloud computing instance identifier associated with the second internet address;” and “in response to the third timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance, identifying a second owner of the second active table based at least in part on a cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table; determining a second cloud computing instance identifier associated with the second internet address;” and “in response to the third timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance, identifying a second owner of the second active table based at least in part on a cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 5, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “for each identified second owner, adding the second owner to the central repository as owner of the corresponding second active table.”, i.e., updating the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 6, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “identifying the plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for active tables with undefined ownership,” i.e., gathering data from the central repository, “and in response to the periodic checking identifying a third active table having undefined ownership, adding the third active table to the plurality of second active tables.”, i.e., updating the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 7, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “periodically checking the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for tables which have been accessed or refreshed within a threshold period of time and for which no ownership is defined.,” i.e., gathering data from the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 8, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the first active table is a data lake table”, referring to the first active table defined in Claim 1 that is involved in gathering data in the claim. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 9, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “identifying the first owner of the first active table further comprises querying a developer repository based on the first cost allocation tag and identifying the first owner based on a response to the query,” i.e., gathering data from the developer repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 10, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “in response to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance being more recent than the first timestamp, determining that the most recent write is not associated with the first cloud computing instance,” i.e., gathering data regarding the recent write and the associated cloud computing instance. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations “determining, based at least in part on the first internet address, whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance", as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “A system for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Furthermore, the additional limitations “identifying a first active table whose ownership is not defined in a central repository, the first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance,” “determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table;” and “and in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance, identifying a first owner of the first active table based at least in part on a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements “A system for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Regarding the “identifying a first active table,” “determining, based on a write long,” and “identifying a first owner” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations “comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein execution of the instructions for determining whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance causes the system to perform operations further comprising: determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address; determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein execution of the instructions for determining whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance causes the system to perform operations further comprising: determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address; determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 13, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “in response to identifying the first owner, adding the first owner to the central repository as owner of the first active table”, i.e., updating the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations “identifying a plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository, each second active table deployed as part of a corresponding second cloud computing instance, and for each second active table of the plurality of second active tables: comparing the third timestamp to a creation time of the second cloud computing instance identified by the second cloud computing instance identifier;” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table; determining a second cloud computing instance identifier associated with the second internet address;” and “in response to the third timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance, identifying a second owner of the second active table based at least in part on a cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table; determining a second cloud computing instance identifier associated with the second internet address;” and “in response to the third timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance, identifying a second owner of the second active table based at least in part on a cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 15, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “for each identified second owner, adding the second owner to the central repository as owner of the corresponding second active table.”, i.e., updating the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 16, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “identifying the plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for active tables with undefined ownership,” i.e., gathering data from the central repository, “and in response to the periodic checking identifying a third active table having undefined ownership, adding the third active table to the plurality of second active tables.”, i.e., updating the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 17, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “periodically checking the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for tables which have been accessed or refreshed within a threshold period of time and for which no ownership is defined.,” i.e., gathering data from the central repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 18, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “identifying the first owner of the first active table further comprises querying a developer repository based on the first cost allocation tag and identifying the first owner based on a response to the query,” i.e., gathering data from the developer repository. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 19, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “in response to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance being more recent than the first timestamp, determining that the most recent write is not associated with the first cloud computing instance,” i.e., gathering data regarding the recent write and the associated cloud computing instance. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations "A method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, comprising:” “comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier;", as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “identifying a first active table whose ownership is not defined in a central repository, the first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance; determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table; determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address; determining a creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier;” and “in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance, identifying a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, and identifying a first owner of the first active table based at least in part on the first cost allocation tag” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the “identifying a first active table,” “determining, based on a write long,” “determining a first cloud computing instance identifier,” “determining a creation time,” “identifying a first cost allocation tag” and “identifying a first owner” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumarasamy (US 11573859 B2) in view of Darji et al. (US 20220391124 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kumarasamy and Darji, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Kumarasamy discloses A method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, comprising (Col. 9, Lines 30-32-In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation. Please note that the cloud storage implementation of primary storage devices 104 allowing for client computing devices 102 to utilize them via a network corresponds to Applicant’s method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, as there must inherently be a method to determine the client devices for a particular primary device, i.e., the ownership of the cloud computing resource.):
identifying a first active table whose ownership is not defined in a central repository, the first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance (Col. 9, Lines 30-32 -In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation.; Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance whose ownership is not defined in the central repository. As the identity of users can be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. Furthermore, since the storage devices 104 of the system can be part of a cloud storage implementation, this corresponds to the first active table being deployed as part of a cloud computing instance, known in the art to be part of a cloud storage implementation.);
identifying a first owner of the first active table based at least in part on a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a first owner of the first active table based on a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost as well as associated users. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to being based on the first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, as that is a specified criteria of the policy for the system.).
Kumarasamy does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table;
determining, based at least in part on the first internet address, whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance;
and in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance
However, Darji discloses determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table ([0123] An audit log is a document that records an event in a computing system. In addition to documenting what resources were accessed, audit log entries typically include destination and source addresses, a timestamp. Please note that the audit log recording an event in a computing system, including a timestamp and a source address, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table based on a write log associated with the first active table, as it is known in the art that a write operation is a common instance of an event in a computing system, and there may be distinct occurrences of the operation by different writing sources, corresponding to a first timestamp and a first internet address. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to determine the most recent such write operation based on the timestamp.);
determining, based at least in part on the first internet address, whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance; and in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the first cloud computing instance. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to determine whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance.).
Kumarasamy and Darji are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of managing cloud storage systems using metadata. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumarasamy to incorporate the teachings of Darji to modify the system that determines ownership of cloud computing resources by identifying a first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance with an ownership not defined in a central repository to determine the first owner based on a first cost allocation tag to determine a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table and whether the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance, resulting in improved logging and identification of users, as described in Darji.
Regarding Claim 2, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 1, Darji further discloses wherein determining whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance comprises: determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address ([0087] the storage cluster is presented to an external network as having a single cluster IP address. Please note that each storage cluster being presented to external networks with a cluster IP address corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first cloud computing instance identifier being associated with the first internet address, as it illustrates common knowledge in the art of being able to identify a cloud computing instance via an internet address.);
determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier; and comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based on the first cloud computing instance identifier, as once the instance was identified via the address, the associated metadata accompanying it would allow for the determination of its creation time. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time identified in this manner by simply comparing the times.).
Regarding Claim 3, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 1, Darji further discloses in response to identifying the first owner, adding the first owner to the central repository as owner of the first active table ([0094] In addition, every piece of data and every piece of metadata has an owner, which may be referred to as an authority.[…] The assignment and use of the authorities 168 thus establishes an indirection to data. Indirection may be referred to as the ability to reference data indirectly, in this case via an authority 168, in accordance with some embodiments. Please note that the assignment of an authority, i.e., an owner, to data to establish an indirection corresponds to Applicant’s adding the first owner to the central repository as owner of the first active table in response to identifying the first owner, i.e., establishing an indirection with an authority for a piece of data, which necessitates a mechanism for registering the authority as associated with the data, corresponding to adding them to the central repository as the owner of the first active table. ).
Regarding Claim 4, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 3, Kumarasamy further discloses identifying a plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository, each second active table deployed as part of a corresponding second cloud computing instance, (Col. 9, Lines 30-32 -In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation.; Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a plurality of second active tables deployed as part of a corresponding second cloud computing instance whose ownership is not defined in the central repository. As the identity of users can be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. Furthermore, since the storage devices 104 of the system can be part of a cloud storage implementation, this corresponds to the second active tables being deployed as part of corresponding cloud computing instances, known in the art to be part of a cloud storage implementation.)
and for each second active table of the plurality of second active tables: identifying a second owner of the second active table based at least in part on a cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a second owner of the second active table based on a cost allocation tag, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost as well as associated users. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to being based on the cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance, as that is a specified criteria of the policy for the system.).
Darji further discloses determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table ([0123] An audit log is a document that records an event in a computing system. In addition to documenting what resources were accessed, audit log entries typically include destination and source addresses, a timestamp. Please note that the audit log recording an event in a computing system, including a timestamp and a source address, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table, as it is known in the art that a write operation is a common instance of an event in a computing system, and there may be distinct occurrences of the operation by different writing sources, corresponding to a third timestamp and a second internet address. );
determining a second cloud computing instance identifier associated with the second internet address ([0087] the storage cluster is presented to an external network as having a single cluster IP address. Please note that each storage cluster being presented to external networks with a cluster IP address corresponds to Applicant’s second cloud computing instance identifier being associated with the second internet address, as it illustrates common knowledge in the art of being able to identify a cloud computing instance via an internet address.);
comparing the third timestamp to a creation time of the second cloud computing instance identified by the second cloud computing instance identifier; in response to the third timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance, ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the second cloud computing instance identified by the second cloud computing instance identifier. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned third timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to determine that the third timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance.);
Regarding Claim 5, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 4, Darji further discloses for each identified second owner, adding the second owner to the central repository as owner of the corresponding second active table ([0094] In addition, every piece of data and every piece of metadata has an owner, which may be referred to as an authority.[…] The assignment and use of the authorities 168 thus establishes an indirection to data. Indirection may be referred to as the ability to reference data indirectly, in this case via an authority 168, in accordance with some embodiments. Please note that the assignment of an authority, i.e., an owner, to data to establish an indirection corresponds to Applicant’s adding the second owner to the central repository as owner of the correspond second active table for each identified second, i.e., establishing an indirection with an authority for a piece of data, which necessitates a mechanism for registering the authority as associated with the data, corresponding to adding them to the central repository as the owner of the corresponding second active table. This is because as there are multiple authorities and data in the system, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that distinct second owners may be identified in addition to the first.).
Regarding Claim 6, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 4, Kumarasamy further discloses wherein identifying the plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for active tables with undefined ownership (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying the plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository comprising periodically checking the central repository for active tables. Since the criteria is current, this necessitates the period checking of the status of the data, corresponding to checking the central repository for active tables. Furthermore, as the identity of users can additionally be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. As there is distinct data in the system, this corresponds to the plurality of second active tables, distinct from the first.),
and in response to the periodic checking identifying a third active table having undefined ownership, adding the third active table to the plurality of second active tables (Please note that since, as stated above, distinct data corresponding to active tables may be identified alongside their owners, this would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to add active tables with the same owner, or in this case, an unidentified owner, corresponding to identifying a third active table distinct from the first and second with unidentified ownership and adding it to the plurality of second active tables.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 6, Kumarasamy further discloses wherein periodically checking the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for tables which have been accessed or refreshed within a threshold period of time and for which no ownership is defined (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; time-related factors (e.g., aging information such as time since the creation or modification of a data object); […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including frequency with which primary data 112 of a data object is predicted to be accessed corresponds to Applicant’s periodically checking the central repository comprising periodically checking the central repository for tables which have been accessed within a threshold period of time, i.e., a predicted frequency, since the criteria being current necessitates periodic checking of accesses. Furthermore, as the identity of users can additionally be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 1, Darji further discloses wherein the first active table is a data lake table ([0203] The storage systems described herein may be used to form a data lake. A data lake may operate as the first place that an organization's data flows to, where such data may be in a raw format. Metadata tagging may be implemented to facilitate searches of data elements in the data lake, especially in embodiments where the data lake contains multiple stores of data, in formats not easily accessible or readable (e.g., unstructured data, semi-structured data, structured data). Please note that the storage systems forming a data lake where metadata tagging may be used to facilitate searches of its data elements corresponds to Applicant’s first active table being a data lake table.).
Regarding Claim 9, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 1, Kumarasamy further discloses wherein identifying the first owner of the first active table further comprises querying a developer repository based on the first cost allocation tag and identifying the first owner based on a response to the query (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying the first owner of the first active table comprising querying a developer repository based on the first cost allocation tag and identifying the first owner based on a response to the query, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost and user data, i.e., querying the developer repository to identify the first owner/user. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to the query being based on the first cost allocation tag, as that is a specified criteria of the policy.).
Regarding Claim 10, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 1, Darji further discloses in response to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance being more recent than the first timestamp, determining that the most recent write is not associated with the first cloud computing instance ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the first cloud computing instance. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to determine that the creation time is more recent than the first timestamp, and thus conclude that the most recent write is not associated with the first cloud computing instance, as, logically, it was created after the most recent write, meaning it could not be associated with the first cloud computing instance.).
Regarding Claim 11, Kumarasamy discloses A system for determining ownership of cloud computing resources (Col. 9, Lines 30-32-In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation. Please note that the cloud storage implementation of primary storage devices 104 allowing for client computing devices 102 to utilize them via a network corresponds to Applicant’s method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, as there must inherently be a method to determine the client devices for a particular primary device, i.e., the ownership of the cloud computing resource.), comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising (Col. 62, Lines 8-24-Each block of the flow chart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flow chart illustrations and/or block diagrams, may be implemented by computer program instructions. Such instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer […] such that the instructions, which execute via the processor(s) of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the acts specified in the flow chart and/or block diagram block or blocks. Please note that the instructions executing via the processors of the computer to implement the specified acts correspond to Applicant’s one or more processors and memory storing instructions that cause the system to perform operations when executed by the processors):
identifying a first active table whose ownership is not defined in a central repository, the first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance (Col. 9, Lines 30-32 -In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation.; Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance whose ownership is not defined in the central repository. As the identity of users can be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. Furthermore, since the storage devices 104 of the system can be part of a cloud storage implementation, this corresponds to the first active table being deployed as part of a cloud computing instance, known in the art to be part of a cloud storage implementation.);
identifying a first owner of the first active table based at least in part on a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a first owner of the first active table based on a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost as well as associated users. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to being based on the first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, as that is a specified criteria of the policy for the system.).
Kumarasamy does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table;
determining, based at least in part on the first internet address, whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance;
and in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance
However, Darji discloses determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table ([0123] An audit log is a document that records an event in a computing system. In addition to documenting what resources were accessed, audit log entries typically include destination and source addresses, a timestamp. Please note that the audit log recording an event in a computing system, including a timestamp and a source address, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table based on a write log associated with the first active table, as it is known in the art that a write operation is a common instance of an event in a computing system, and there may be distinct occurrences of the operation by different writing sources, corresponding to a first timestamp and a first internet address. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to determine the most recent such write operation based on the timestamp.);
determining, based at least in part on the first internet address, whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance; and in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the first cloud computing instance. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to determine whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance.).
Kumarasamy and Darji are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of managing cloud storage systems using metadata. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumarasamy to incorporate the teachings of Darji to modify the system that determines ownership of cloud computing resources by identifying a first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance with an ownership not defined in a central repository to determine the first owner based on a first cost allocation tag to determine a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table and whether the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance, resulting in improved logging and identification of users, as described in Darji.
Regarding Claim 12, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 11, Darji further discloses wherein determining whether or not the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance comprises: determining a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address ([0087] the storage cluster is presented to an external network as having a single cluster IP address. Please note that each storage cluster being presented to external networks with a cluster IP address corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first cloud computing instance identifier being associated with the first internet address, as it illustrates common knowledge in the art of being able to identify a cloud computing instance via an internet address.);
determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier; and comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based on the first cloud computing instance identifier, as once the instance was identified via the address, the associated metadata accompanying it would allow for the determination of its creation time. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time identified in this manner by simply comparing the times.).
Regarding Claim 13, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 11, Darji further wherein execution of the instructions causes the system to perform operations further comprising, in response to identifying the first owner, adding the first owner to the central repository as owner of the first active table ([0094] In addition, every piece of data and every piece of metadata has an owner, which may be referred to as an authority.[…] The assignment and use of the authorities 168 thus establishes an indirection to data. Indirection may be referred to as the ability to reference data indirectly, in this case via an authority 168, in accordance with some embodiments. Please note that the assignment of an authority, i.e., an owner, to data to establish an indirection corresponds to Applicant’s adding the first owner to the central repository as owner of the first active table in response to identifying the first owner, i.e., establishing an indirection with an authority for a piece of data, which necessitates a mechanism for registering the authority as associated with the data, corresponding to adding them to the central repository as the owner of the first active table. ).
Regarding Claim 14, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 13, Kumarasamy further discloses identifying a plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository, each second active table deployed as part of a corresponding second cloud computing instance, (Col. 9, Lines 30-32 -In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation.; Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a plurality of second active tables deployed as part of a corresponding second cloud computing instance whose ownership is not defined in the central repository. As the identity of users can be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. Furthermore, since the storage devices 104 of the system can be part of a cloud storage implementation, this corresponds to the second active tables being deployed as part of corresponding cloud computing instances, known in the art to be part of a cloud storage implementation.)
and for each second active table of the plurality of second active tables: identifying a second owner of the second active table based at least in part on a cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a second owner of the second active table based on a cost allocation tag, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost as well as associated users. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to being based on the cost allocation tag associated with the second cloud computing instance, as that is a specified criteria of the policy for the system.).
Darji further discloses determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table ([0123] An audit log is a document that records an event in a computing system. In addition to documenting what resources were accessed, audit log entries typically include destination and source addresses, a timestamp. Please note that the audit log recording an event in a computing system, including a timestamp and a source address, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a third timestamp and a second internet address associated with a most recent write to the second active table, as it is known in the art that a write operation is a common instance of an event in a computing system, and there may be distinct occurrences of the operation by different writing sources, corresponding to a third timestamp and a second internet address. );
determining a second cloud computing instance identifier associated with the second internet address ([0087] the storage cluster is presented to an external network as having a single cluster IP address. Please note that each storage cluster being presented to external networks with a cluster IP address corresponds to Applicant’s second cloud computing instance identifier being associated with the second internet address, as it illustrates common knowledge in the art of being able to identify a cloud computing instance via an internet address.);
comparing the third timestamp to a creation time of the second cloud computing instance identified by the second cloud computing instance identifier; in response to the third timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance, ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the second cloud computing instance identified by the second cloud computing instance identifier. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned third timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to determine that the third timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the second cloud computing instance.);
Regarding Claim 15, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 14, Darji further discloses for each identified second owner, adding the second owner to the central repository as owner of the corresponding second active table ([0094] In addition, every piece of data and every piece of metadata has an owner, which may be referred to as an authority.[…] The assignment and use of the authorities 168 thus establishes an indirection to data. Indirection may be referred to as the ability to reference data indirectly, in this case via an authority 168, in accordance with some embodiments. Please note that the assignment of an authority, i.e., an owner, to data to establish an indirection corresponds to Applicant’s adding the second owner to the central repository as owner of the correspond second active table for each identified second, i.e., establishing an indirection with an authority for a piece of data, which necessitates a mechanism for registering the authority as associated with the data, corresponding to adding them to the central repository as the owner of the corresponding second active table. This is because as there are multiple authorities and data in the system, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that distinct second owners may be identified in addition to the first.).
Regarding Claim 16, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 14, Kumarasamy further discloses wherein identifying the plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for active tables with undefined ownership (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying the plurality of second active tables whose ownership is not defined in the central repository comprising periodically checking the central repository for active tables. Since the criteria is current, this necessitates the period checking of the status of the data, corresponding to checking the central repository for active tables. Furthermore, as the identity of users can additionally be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. As there is distinct data in the system, this corresponds to the plurality of second active tables, distinct from the first.),
and in response to the periodic checking identifying a third active table having undefined ownership, adding the third active table to the plurality of second active tables (Please note that since, as stated above, distinct data corresponding to active tables may be identified alongside their owners, this would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to add active tables with the same owner, or in this case, an unidentified owner, corresponding to identifying a third active table distinct from the first and second with unidentified ownership and adding it to the plurality of second active tables.).
Regarding Claim 17, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 16, Kumarasamy further discloses wherein periodically checking the central repository comprises periodically checking the central repository for tables which have been accessed or refreshed within a threshold period of time and for which no ownership is defined (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; time-related factors (e.g., aging information such as time since the creation or modification of a data object); […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including frequency with which primary data 112 of a data object is predicted to be accessed corresponds to Applicant’s periodically checking the central repository comprising periodically checking the central repository for tables which have been accessed within a threshold period of time, i.e., a predicted frequency, since the criteria being current necessitates periodic checking of accesses. Furthermore, as the identity of users can additionally be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well.).
Regarding Claim 18, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 11, Kumarasamy further discloses wherein identifying the first owner of the first active table further comprises querying a developer repository based on the first cost allocation tag and identifying the first owner based on a response to the query (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying the first owner of the first active table comprising querying a developer repository based on the first cost allocation tag and identifying the first owner based on a response to the query, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost and user data, i.e., querying the developer repository to identify the first owner/user. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to the query being based on the first cost allocation tag, as that is a specified criteria of the policy.).
Regarding Claim 19, Kumarasamy-Darji as described in Claim 11, Darji further discloses in response to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance being more recent than the first timestamp, determining that the most recent write is not associated with the first cloud computing instance ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the first cloud computing instance. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to determine that the creation time is more recent than the first timestamp, and thus conclude that the most recent write is not associated with the first cloud computing instance, as, logically, it was created after the most recent write, meaning it could not be associated with the first cloud computing instance.).
Regarding Claim 20, Kumarasamy discloses A method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources (Col. 9, Lines 30-32-In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation. Please note that the cloud storage implementation of primary storage devices 104 allowing for client computing devices 102 to utilize them via a network corresponds to Applicant’s method for determining ownership of cloud computing resources, as there must inherently be a method to determine the client devices for a particular primary device, i.e., the ownership of the cloud computing resource.), comprising:
identifying a first active table whose ownership is not defined in a central repository, the first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance (Col. 9, Lines 30-32 -In other cases, one or more primary storage devices 104 can be shared by multiple client computing devices 102, e.g., via a network such as in a cloud storage implementation.; Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; […] the identity of users, […] and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the identity of users for a particular data object corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance whose ownership is not defined in the central repository. As the identity of users can be checked, this corresponds to the tables, i.e., the data, having no defined ownership, since this can be checked as well. Furthermore, since the storage devices 104 of the system can be part of a cloud storage implementation, this corresponds to the first active table being deployed as part of a cloud computing instance, known in the art to be part of a cloud storage implementation.);
identifying a first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, and identifying a first owner of the first active table based at least in part on the first cost allocation tag (Col. 36, Lines 4-33-Policies can additionally specify or depend on a variety of historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: […] an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users. Please note that policies depending on current criteria including the estimated cost associated with different components and the identity of users corresponds to Applicant’s identifying a first owner of the first active table based on an identified first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, since the criteria being current necessitates checking the cost as well as associated users. As the criteria may depend on estimated cost for the policy, this corresponds to being based on the identified first cost allocation tag associated with the first cloud computing instance, as that is a specified criteria of the policy for the system.).
Kumarasamy does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table;
determining, a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address;
determining a creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier;
comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier; in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance
However, Darji discloses determining, based on a write log associated with the first active table, a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table ([0123] An audit log is a document that records an event in a computing system. In addition to documenting what resources were accessed, audit log entries typically include destination and source addresses, a timestamp. Please note that the audit log recording an event in a computing system, including a timestamp and a source address, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table based on a write log associated with the first active table, as it is known in the art that a write operation is a common instance of an event in a computing system, and there may be distinct occurrences of the operation by different writing sources, corresponding to a first timestamp and a first internet address. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to determine the most recent such write operation based on the timestamp.);
determining, a first cloud computing instance identifier associated with the first internet address ([0087] the storage cluster is presented to an external network as having a single cluster IP address. Please note that each storage cluster being presented to external networks with a cluster IP address corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first cloud computing instance identifier being associated with the first internet address, as it illustrates common knowledge in the art of being able to identify a cloud computing instance via an internet address.);
determining a creation time of the first cloud computing instance based at least in part on the first cloud computing instance identifier ([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s determining the creation time of the first cloud computing instance based on the first cloud computing instance identifier, as once the instance was identified via the address, the associated metadata accompanying it would allow for the determination of its creation time.);
comparing the first timestamp to the creation time of the first cloud computing instance identified by the first cloud computing instance identifier; in response to the first timestamp being more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance([0100] Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data and a creation timestamp, among other attributes. Please note that the creation timestamp in the metadata of an object corresponds to Applicant’s creation time of the first cloud computing instance. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to compare the aforementioned first timestamp to the creation time by simply comparing the times, and be able to compare the first timestamp to the creation time to determine that the first timestamp is more recent than the creation time of the first cloud computing instance.).
Kumarasamy and Darji are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of managing cloud storage systems using metadata. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumarasamy to incorporate the teachings of Darji to modify the system that determines ownership of cloud computing resources by identifying a first active table deployed as part of a first cloud computing instance with an ownership not defined in a central repository to determine the first owner based on a first cost allocation tag to determine a first timestamp and a first internet address associated with a most recent write to the first active table and whether the first timestamp is more recent than a creation time of the first cloud computing instance, resulting in improved logging and identification of users, as described in Darji.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Darji (US 20230214246 A1) discloses an audit log to record computer events with destination and source addresses, timestamps, and user login information, wireless communications with a cloud services provider and data lakes (see [0114-0118, 0196]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196