DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to communications filed March 12, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 21-25 and 27-41 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Status of Claims
Claim 21-25 and 27-41 are pending, of which claims 21, 29, and 37 are in independent form. Claims 21-25 and 27-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9-1, 20-22, 26-27, and 29-38 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recites “The method of claim 0…” or "The system of claim 0…” which should read the proper claim number in which the dependent claim depends on. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-25, 29-34, 37-39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Pascale et al. (US 2018/0121447) (hereinafter Pascale), and in further view of Amit et al. (US 2011/0302219) (hereinafter Amit) and Stojanovic et al. (US 2016/0092476)(hereinafter Stojanovic).
Regarding claim 21, Mason teaches a method comprising: generating, from the portion of the snapshot, a transformed snapshot portion by applying a transformation to the one or more data objects (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Figs. 5-6, Fig. 9, col. 3 ln 65 – col. 4 ln 2, col. 9 ln 44-50, col. 10 ln 5-12, discloses generating a transformed data of a local file system to a versioned file system structured data at a point-in-time based on Content Control Service configuration for versions stored in a cloud); and in response to a request to access the portion of the snapshot, providing, by the cloud-based storage system, access to the transformed snapshot portion (see Fig. 3, Fig. 11, col. 9 ln 45-50, col. 9 ln 57-60, discloses Content Control Service providing access to versioned file system).
Mason does not explicitly teach identifying, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system, one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy; wherein the access policy specifies the transformation to apply, wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request.
Pascale teaches wherein an access policy specifies the transformation to apply (see Fig. 4, para [0027], para [0030-0031], discloses a policy that applies to transformation of data, specifying data in a specific format, to produce a different representation of data, such as a social security number being replaced with hash value returned by a hash function).
Mason/Pascale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason to specify the transformation to apply from disclosure of Pascale. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Pascale as “allowing administrators of a service system to access user data in a way that protects the privacy of users” (para [0004]) and specifying the transformation to apply is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Mason/Pascale does not explicitly teach wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request.
Amit teaches wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request (see Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para [0039], para [0042], para [0045], discloses logical data object stored in storage device as transformed logical data object corresponding to identification of the logical data object matching identification of the transformed logical data object prior to request to access stored logical data object that is the transformed logical data object ).
Mason/Pascale/Amit are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale to transform data prior to request from disclosure of Amit. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Amit as “more powerful and more efficient ways to store information, optimization of storage technologies” (para [0003]) and transforming data prior to request is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Mason/Pascale/Amit do not explicitly teach identifying, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system, one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy.
Stojanovic teaches identifying, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system (see Fig. 10A, para [0156], discloses a cloud storage service), one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy (see Fig. 8, Figs. 10A-10B, Table 17, para [0145-0146], discloses identifying URI pointer of a profile to an object that defines transformation of a transformed data set based on an accessed data set from a data source and matches a design time profile, that specifies a transform associated with data from the data source).
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale/Amit to identify data objects that match defined data objects from disclosure of Stojanovic. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Stojanovic as “improving processing speed and reducing load on system resources” (para [0107]) and identifying data objects that match defined data objects is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 29, Mason teaches an apparatus comprising a memory; a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, configured to: (see col. 3 ln 56-58, discloses processor and memory): generate, from the portion of the snapshot, a transformed snapshot portion by applying a transformation to the one or more data objects (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Figs. 5-6, Fig. 9, col. 3 ln 65 – col. 4 ln 2, col. 9 ln 44-50, col. 10 ln 5-12, discloses generating a transformed data of a local file system to a versioned file system structured data at a point-in-time based on Content Control Service configuration for versions stored in a cloud); and in response to a request to access the portion of the snapshot, provide, by the cloud-based storage system, the transformed snapshot portion (see Fig. 3, Fig. 11, col. 9 ln 45-50, col. 9 ln 57-60, discloses Content Control Service providing access to versioned file system).
Mason does not explicitly teach identify, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system, one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy; wherein the access policy specifies the transformation to apply, wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request.
Pascale teaches wherein the access policy specifies the transformation to apply (see Fig. 4, para [0027], para [0030-0031], discloses a policy that applies to transformation of data, specifying data in a specific format, to produce a different representation of data, such as a social security number being replaced with hash value returned by a hash function).
Mason/Pascale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason to specify the transformation to apply from disclosure of Pascale. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Pascale as “allowing administrators of a service system to access user data in a way that protects the privacy of users” (para [0004]) and specifying the transformation to apply is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Mason/Pascale does not explicitly teach wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request.
Amit teaches wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request (see Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para [0039], para [0042], para [0045], discloses logical data object stored in storage device as transformed logical data object corresponding to identification of the logical data object matching identification of the transformed logical data object prior to request to access stored logical data object that is the transformed logical data object ).
Mason/Pascale/Amit are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale to transform data prior to request from disclosure of Amit. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Amit as “more powerful and more efficient ways to store information, optimization of storage technologies” (para [0003]) and transforming data prior to request is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Mason/Pascale/Amit do not explicitly teach identify, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system, one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy.
Stojanovic teaches identify, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system (see Fig. 10A, para [0156], discloses a cloud storage service), one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy (see Fig. 8, Figs. 10A-10B, Table 17, para [0145-0146], discloses identifying URI pointer of a profile to an object that defines transformation of a transformed data set based on an accessed data set from a data source and matches a design time profile, that specifies a transform associated with data from the data source).
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale/Amit to identify data objects that match defined data objects from disclosure of Stojanovic. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Stojanovic as “improving processing speed and reducing load on system resources” (para [0107]) and identifying data objects that match defined data objects is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 37, Mason teaches a system comprising a memory; a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, configured to: (see col. 3 ln 56-58, discloses processor and memory): generate, from the portion of the snapshot, a transformed snapshot portion by applying a transformation to the one or more data objects (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Figs. 5-6, Fig. 9, col. 3 ln 65 – col. 4 ln 2, col. 9 ln 44-50, col. 10 ln 5-12, discloses generating a transformed data of a local file system to a versioned file system structured data at a point-in-time based on Content Control Service configuration for versions stored in a cloud); and in response to a request to access the portion of the snapshot, provide, by the cloud-based storage system, access to the transformed snapshot portion (see Fig. 3, Fig. 11, col. 9 ln 45-50, col. 9 ln 57-60, discloses Content Control Service providing access to versioned file system).
Mason does not explicitly teach identify, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system, one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy; wherein an access policy for specifies the transformation to apply, wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request.
Pascale teaches wherein the access policy specifies the transformation to apply (see Fig. 4, para [0027], para [0030-0031], discloses a policy that applies to transformation of data, specifying data in a specific format, to produce a different representation of data, such as a social security number being replaced with hash value returned by a hash function).
Mason/Pascale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason to specify the transformation to apply from disclosure of Pascale. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Pascale as “allowing administrators of a service system to access user data in a way that protects the privacy of users” (para [0004]) and specifying the transformation to apply is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Mason/Pascale does not explicitly teach wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request.
Amit teaches wherein the transformation was performed prior to the request (see Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para [0039], para [0042], para [0045], discloses logical data object stored in storage device as transformed logical data object corresponding to identification of the logical data object matching identification of the transformed logical data object prior to request to access stored logical data object that is the transformed logical data object ).
Mason/Pascale/Amit are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale to transform data prior to request from disclosure of Amit. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Amit as “more powerful and more efficient ways to store information, optimization of storage technologies” (para [0003]) and transforming data prior to request is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Mason/Pascale/Amit do not explicitly teach identify, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system, one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy.
Stojanovic teaches identify, within a portion of a snapshot stored in a cloud-based storage system (see Fig. 10A, para [0156], discloses a cloud storage service), one or more data objects that match one or more defined data objects specified in an access policy (see Fig. 8, Figs. 10A-10B, Table 17, para [0145-0146], discloses identifying URI pointer of a profile to an object that defines transformation of a transformed data set based on an accessed data set from a data source and matches a design time profile, that specifies a transform associated with data from the data source).
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale/Amit to identify data objects that match defined data objects from disclosure of Stojanovic. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Stojanovic as “improving processing speed and reducing load on system resources” (para [0107]) and identifying data objects that match defined data objects is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 22, 30, and 38, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches a method of claim 21, apparatus of claim 29, and system of claim 37.
Mason does not explicitly teach associating the access policy with the stored snapshot, the access policy specifying the transformation to apply to the one or more data objects.
Pascale teaches associating the access policy with the stored snapshot, the access policy specifying the transformation to apply to the one or more data objects (see Fig. 4, para [0027], para [0030-0031], discloses a policy that applies to transformation of data, specifying data in a specific format, to produce a different representation of data, such as a social security number (predefined data object) being replaced with hash value returned by a hash function).
Regarding claims 23, 31, and 39, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches a method of claim 21, apparatus of claim 29, and system of claim 37.
Mason further teaches wherein generating the transformed snapshot portion further comprises: creating modified versions of the one or more data objects within the portion of the stored snapshot that match the predefined data object by applying the transformation to apply to the predefined data object (see Figs. 5-6, col. 8 ln 4-13, discloses creating versioned file system with complete integrity to the data store).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches a method of claim 21 and an apparatus of claim 29.
Mason further teaches storing, within the cloud-based storage system, the transformed snapshot portion (see Fig. 7, Fig. 11, col. 10, ln 26-31, discloses root stored in versioned file system, VFS data structure in cloud storage).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches a method of claim 21 and an apparatus of claim 29.
Mason further teaches storing, within the cloud-based storage system, modified versions of the one or more data objects within the portion of the stored snapshot that match the one or more data objects specified in the access policy (see Fig. 11, col. 14 ln 29-33, discloses storing versions in versioned file system cloud storage), without storing, within the cloud-based storage system, an additional copy of data objects within the portion of the stored snapshot that do not match the one or more data objects specified in the access policy (see Fig. 9, col. 8 ln 57-60, col. 10 ln43-46, discloses a given volume storing copies of metadata and data at multiple clouds for replication).
Regarding claim 34, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches an apparatus of claim 29.
Mason further teaches receive a request to access the portion of the snapshot; and in response to receiving the request to access the portion of the snapshot, present the transformed snapshot portion stored within the cloud-based storage system (see Fig. 3, col.15 ln 5-11, discloses receiving request to access to storage cloud data via CCS).
Regarding claim 41, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teach a method of claim 21.
Mason/Pascale do not explicitly teach generating the transformed snapshot portion in response to the request to access the portion of the snapshot.
Amit teaches generating the transformed snapshot portion in response to the request to access the portion of the snapshot (see Figs. 4-5B, para [0045], para [0048-0049], discloses generating corresponding instance (transformed snapshot portion) in response to access-related request regarding a certain logical data object).
Claims 27-28, 35-36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Pascale and Amit and Stojanovic as applied to claims 21, 29, and 37, and in further view of Arumugam et al. (US 2017/0171246) (hereinafter Arumugam).
Regarding claims 27, 35, and 40, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches a method of claim 21, apparatus of claim 29, and system of claim 37.
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic does not explicitly teach wherein the access policy indicates types of information that are to be made inaccessible
Arumugam teaches wherein the access policy indicates types of information that are to be made inaccessible (see para [0040-0043], discloses policies specifying data that should be masked, such as social security number and data of birth).
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic/Arumugam are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic to indicate types of information that is made inaccessible from disclosure of Arumugam. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Arumugam as “can provide an additional layer of privacy for user data stored in the file system” (para [0009]) and indicate types of information that is made inaccessible is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 28 and 36, Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic teaches a method of claim 21 and an apparatus of claim 29.
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic does not explicitly teach wherein applying the access policy to the one or more data objects to generate the transformed snapshot portion further comprises masking types of information that are to be made inaccessible.
Arumugam teaches wherein applying the access policy to the one or more data objects to generate the transformed snapshot portion further comprises masking types of information that are to be made inaccessible (see para [0040-0046], discloses applying access policy to portions of data to be masked).
Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic/Arumugam are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mason/Pascale/Amit/Stojanovic to indicate types of information that is made inaccessible from disclosure of Arumugam. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Arumugam as “can provide an additional layer of privacy for user data stored in the file system” (para [0009]) and indicate types of information that is made inaccessible is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights