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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
35 USC § 112(f) – Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a snapshot engine configured to”, “a request engine configured to”, and “a revert engine configured to” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2021/0357246) (hereinafter Kumar) in view of Majumdar (US 8,850,146).
As per claim 1, Kumar primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method, comprising:
creating a snapshot of a virtual computing instance (VCI) ([0334] initiating creation of VM snapshot), provided by a cloud provider, using a development platform ([0328] cloud-based VM snapshots and [0332] cloud service provider such as Google Cloud Platform);
a new boot disk on the cloud and a current boot disk in the development platform ([0377] boot disk of data source i.e., VM snapshot and [0416] boot disk of backup copy and boot disk of first virtual machine);
a new data disk and a current data disk associated with the VCI ([0327] one or more data disks);
powering off the VCI ([0011] power off VM; [0349] VM is powered off; [0361] VM is powered down; [0385] VM is powered off) and detaching the boot disk and the data disk ([0410] detach disks and volumes);
attaching the new boot disk and the new data disk to the VCI ([0318] attach a disk to an instance; [0359] vdisk attaches to VM; [0370] vdisk is attached to VM);
powering on the VCI ([0348] VM is powered on; [0367] VM is powered on; [0408]-[0409] power up VM); and
deleting the detached boot disk and the detached data disk ([0254] delete backup copy from disk library; [0349] disk is discarded; [0385] discard disk).
Kumar does not explicitly teach:
receiving a request to revert to the snapshot;
performing a revert operation responsive to receiving the request;
creating a new disk to replace a current disk;
creating a new disk to replace a current disk associated with the VCI.
However, Majumdar teaches:
receiving a request to revert to the snapshot (col. 8, ll. 42-47 request the virtual machine host software to perform the reversion, e.g., by passing an ID of the first snapshot to the virtual machine host software and requesting the reversion to be performed based on the first snapshot);
performing a revert operation responsive to receiving the request (col. 8, ll. 47-60 the virtual machine host software may then revert the virtual disk image file(s) to the first snapshot e.g., revert the virtual disk image file(s) to their earlier state as represented by the first snapshot. For example, the virtual machine host software may use the first snapshot ID to read the snapshot data of the first snapshot from the virtual disk image file(s) mounted from the backup image, and may use the snapshot data to revert the virtual disk image file(s) to their state as they existed at the time T1).
creating a new disk to replace a current disk (col. 8, ll. 61 to col. 9, ll. 3 after the virtual disk image file(s) have been reverted, the original backup image of the virtual disk image file(s) may be replaced by a new backup image of the reverted virtual disk image file(s));
creating a new disk to replace a current disk associated with the VCI (col. 8, ll. 61 to col. 9, ll. 3 if a user or administrator later wants to restore the virtual machine, the backup image of the reverted virtual disk image file(s) and the backup image of the pass-through volume(s) may be used to restore the virtual machine to the time T1).
Majumdar and Kumar are both concerned with virtual machines in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar because it would enable a virtual machine to be backed up while it is being executed, e.g., without stopping the virtual machine or taking it offline. This may be advantageous since the virtual machine can continue performing tasks while the backup occurs.
As per claim 7, Majumdar teaches wherein performing the revert operation performs a revert of every disk of the VCI that existed when the snapshot was created (col. 8, ll. 30-60 virtual machine host software may revert the virtual disk image file(s) to the first snapshot e.g., revert the virtual disk image file(s) to their earlier state as represented by the first snapshot).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson (US 2005/0273757).
As per claim 2, Kumar in view of Majumdar do not explicitly teach wherein the method includes storing operations as callable functions in a stack object.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the method includes storing operations as callable functions in a stack object (claim 7 recording contents of a call stack includes creating a call stack object for each function call in the call stack, creating a shadow stack, and storing the call stack objects in the shadow stack.).
Anderson and Kumar are both concerned with code execution in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson because it would provide a way of generating a dynamic view of a computer program that is concise and easily understood by a user having utility in rapid application development, formal software development, and in reducing the cost of maintaining legacy software systems.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Balasubramanian (US 2013/0283105).
As per claim 3, Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson teach the various different operations of claim 3 in claims 1-2 above (i.e., creating the new boot disk, creating the new data disk, powering off the VCI, detaching the boot disk and the data disk, attaching the new boot disk and the new data disk, powering on the VCI).
Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson do not explicitly teach the concept of adding different operation types to a stack object.
However, Balasubramanian teaches the concept of adding different operation types to a stack object (fig. 8 and [0013] exemplary high level programming code and corresponding operation of a stack object database during PUSH and POP operations; [0044] data element that is about to be stored in the stack memory; [0071] add an entry pertaining to space within the stack object; [0076]-[0077] push/store operations for stack object and object is added to stack object database).
Balasubramanian and Kumar are both concerned with code execution in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Balasubramanian because it would provide a live recovery feature which can leverage some techniques used for live mounting a cloud-based VM. Hence, live recovery moves data from the data source e.g., backup copy directly to the cloud-based virtual disks of the recovery VM, thus minimizing intermediate copy operations resulting in only minimal downtime during the switchover from temp-mounted VM to recovery VM. The advantage of live recovery over a traditional restore operation is that live recovery enables a cloud-based VM to begin operating well before the backup copy is fully restored.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Balasubramanian in view of Aswathanarayana et al. (US 2014/0325170) (hereinafter Aswathanarayana).
As per claim 4, Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson teach performing the various different operations of claim 4 in claims 1-3 above (i.e., performing the delete boot disk operation, delete data disk operation, power on operation, attach disk operation, detach disk operation, and power off operation) while Balasubramanian teaches performing the different operations in the stack object ([0055] program execution modes associated with stack memory; [0072] performing stack memory operations; [0076] pop/load operations of stack object database).
However, Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Balasubramanian do not explicitly teach performing the aforementioned steps responsive to determining that the revert operation was a failure.
However, Aswathanarayana teaches performing the aforementioned steps responsive to determining that the revert operation was a failure ([0074] content of a base virtual volume may be reverted with snapshot virtual volumes, and if this reversion is unsuccessful, then content of the base virtual volume may be then be reverted using the snapshot of the base virtual volume, returning the virtual disk to its state before the unsuccessful reversion operation).
Aswathanarayana and Kumar are both concerned with code execution in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Balasubramanian in view of Aswathanarayana because it would provide for a virtual machine (VM) associated with a virtual disk which can be stunned during snapshotting, whereby the snapshot operation may be split into two phases: an asynchronous preparation phase in which the storage system creates a copy on write snapshot virtual volume and continues to allow IOs to the current running point, and a synchronous snapshot phase in which the VM is stunned while the a copy on write snapshot virtual volume hierarchy is associated with appropriate disk descriptor files via a swizzling operation. Doing so reduces the time needed for a snapshot, which may be required to be short to avoid guest IOs failing as a result of stunning the VM for too long.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki (US 2010/0088699) in view of Singh et al. (US 2020/0311025) (hereinafter Singh).
As per claim 5, Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson do not explicitly teach wherein the method includes storing a name of the data disk and an identifier of the snapshot in a snapshot state object.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein the method includes storing a name of the data disk ([0149] a user data disk image name is written in a disk image combination map).
Sasaki and Kumar are both concerned with code execution in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki because it would provide a way for unnecessary virtual machine images to be removed from a client so that the physical disk can be used efficiently. Further, since an administrator can confirm the deletion of a user data disk image in which confidential information is recorded, it can ensure that, even when the client is lost, any possibility of an information leak incident will be eliminated. This has an advantageous effect that in a client system in which a virtual machine is executed in the virtual machine execution server and only screen images are transferred to the client, the OS and security middleware of a virtual machine running in the virtual machine execution server can be protected.
Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki do not explicitly teach wherein the method includes storing an identifier of the snapshot in a snapshot state object.
However, Singh teaches wherein the method includes storing an identifier of the snapshot in a snapshot state object ([0070] a set of snapshot metadata attributes indicates that a metadata record e.g., table row or object instance for a particular snapshot describes a snapshot identifier e.g., stored in an “ssID” field).
Singh and Kumar are both concerned with code execution in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki in view of Singh because it would provide a way to reduce demands for computer memory, reduce demands for computer processing power, reduce network bandwidth usage, and reduce demands for intercomponent communication. For example, when performing computer operations that address the various technical problems that arise upon discovering that a replicated snapshot is corrupted, memory usage, network bandwidth needed, and CPU cycles demanded are significantly reduced as compared to the memory usage, network bandwidth and CPU cycles that would be needed. This can reduce or eliminate network communications for moving data that would ordinarily occur and verify checksums of snapshot components before moving the corresponding data across a network. Furthermore, rather than expend resources to remediate after performing disaster recovery operations using corrupted replicated snapshots, identification of corrupted replicated snapshots prior to performing such disaster recovery operations can be done, thereby eliminating the foregoing wasteful expenditure of resources.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki in view of Singh in view of Patwardhan et al. (US 2020/0019466) (hereinafter Patwardhan).
As per claim 6, Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki in view of Singh do not explicitly teach deleting a snapshot of any disk associated with the VCI responsive to receiving a request to delete the snapshot.
However, Patwardhan teaches deleting a snapshot of any disk associated with the VCI responsive to receiving a request to delete the snapshot ([0121] requesting deletion of the first snapshot and then deleting the first snapshot).
Patwardhan and Kumar are both concerned with code execution in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Majumdar in view of Anderson in view of Sasaki in view of Singh in view of Patwardhan because it would provide a way of generating a snapshot of a primary disk associated with a virtual machine to be backed up to help ensure a consistent e.g., crash-consistent backup. As part of the snapshot generation, the virtual machine manager may quiesce the virtual machine and freeze all I/O to disk to establish a consistent state of the virtual machine. Since a snapshot is not an actual copy of data, the snapshot can be generated very quickly. Thus, there is relatively very little disruption to the operation of the virtual machine during snapshot creation.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Samprathi et al. (US 2019/0384678) disclose managing backup and restore of objects over cloud platforms.
Quan (US 11,397,645) discloses storage volume snapshot object management.
Luo et al. (US 2023/0221877) disclose migration of virtualized computing instances with multiple disk chains in virtualized computing environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 January 28, 2026