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
2. Claims 1-20 are present in this application. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office
action.
This office action is NON-FINAL.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 02/12/24 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The Specification filed on 02/12/24 is acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 08/01/24 and 02/12/24 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
Claims 1-22 are present in this application. Claims 1-22 are pending in this office
unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent
and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double
patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly
owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of
activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP §
717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions
of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for
applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the
AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in
which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26,
PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may
be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets
all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For
more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of
US Patent No. 11,899,620 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,899,620 B2 recite the elements of claims 1-20 of the Instant Application No. 18/438,821.
Both claim features of the instant application 18/438,821 and US Patent No.
11,899,620 B2 can be compared as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/438,821
US Patent No. 11,899,620 B2
1. A method comprising: maintaining an object, comprising a plurality of slots populated with data of one or more snapshots of a file system of a client device, within an object store of a cloud computing environment; attaching metadata to an object header of the object while preserving accessibility to user data stored within in-use slots as in-use data and preserving the object as a pseudo read only object where the in-use data of the object is unmodifiable and unused or freed data within unused slots of the object is readable; and
selectively providing a first application with access the user data within the in-use slots and the metadata within the object header and providing a second application with access to the user data within the in-use slots of the object and restricting the second application from access to the metadata within the header of the object, wherein modify operations targeting the in-use data within the in-use slots are blocked and operations targeting the unused or freed data within the unused slots are allowed.
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: maintaining an object, comprising a plurality of slots
populated with data of one or more snapshots of a file system of
a client device, within an object store of a cloud computing environment;
offloading processing and resource utilization from the client device to an analytics application hosted within the
cloud computing environment for executing analytic processing upon the object to generate analytics information relating to access statistics for the object;
attaching the analytics information as metadata to an object header of the object while preserving accessibility to
user data stored within in-use slots as in-use data and preserving a read only attribute of the object maintained as a
pseudo read only object where the in-use data of the object is unmodifiable and unused or freed data within unused slots of the object is modifiable; and
selectively providing a first application with access to the user data within the in-use slots and the analytics information stored as the metadata within the object header and providing a second application with access to the user data within the in-use slots of the object and restricting the second application from access to the analytics information within the header of the object, wherein modify operations targeting the in-use data within the in-use slots are blocked and modify
operations targeting the unused or freed data within the unused slots are allowed while the read only attribute is maintained for the object without compromising the read only attribute.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises path information of directory files and inode information of an inofile block.
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises path information of directory files and inode information of an inofile block.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of versions of the object are maintained within the object store and the method comprising: enforcing a rule that related read operations are to be directed to a same version of the object.
8. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of versions of the object are maintained within the
object store and the method comprising:
enforcing a rule that related read operations are to be directed to a same version of the object.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the enforcing the rule comprises: comparing timestamp data returned for a first read operation and a second read operation for the object to determine whether the first read operation and the second read operation were executed upon the same version of the object based upon whether the timestamp data matches, wherein the first read operation and the second read operation are retried based upon a mismatch of the timestamp data, and wherein a timestamp is a modified time for the object that is unaffected by read operations to the object.
9. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 8, wherein the enforcing the rule comprises: comparing timestamp data returned for a first read operation and a second read operation for the object to determine whether the first read operation and the second read operation were executed upon the same version of the object based upon whether the timestamp data matches, wherein the first read operation and the second read operation are retried based upon a mismatch of the timestamp data, and wherein a timestamp is a modified time for the object that is unaffected by read
operations to the object.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first read operation is to the object header to obtain slot information of a slot and the second read operation is to the slot identified by the slot information.
10. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the first read operation is to the object header to obtain slot information of a slot and the second read operation is to the slot identified by the slot information.
11. The method of claim 8, wherein a new version of the object is created to comprise new user data that would otherwise overwrite current user data within a current version of the object.
11. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein a new version of the object is created to comprise new user data that would otherwise overwrite current user data within a current version of the object.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
7. 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.
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.
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:
Claims 1-7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bannister et al. (US 2016/0277497 A1) in view of MEISTER et al. (US 2018/0356989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bannister teaches a method comprising:
maintaining an object, comprising a plurality of slots populated with data of one or more snapshots of a file system of a client device, (See Bannister paragraph [0048], cloud controllers may maintain records of past snapshots to allow file accesses to be rolled back across multiple different versions, thereby allowing clients to view historical versions of files and/or the changes made to files over time), within an object store of a cloud computing environment, (See Bannister paragraph [0059], a cloud storage provider environment 620 (e.g., a cloud storage and computing environment); and
selectively providing a first application with access the user data within the in-use slots and the metadata within the object header and providing a second application with access to the user data within the in-use slots of the object, (See Bannister paragraph [0054], the cloud controllers of a distributed filesystem may be configured to selectively close the synchronization gap of bulk update techniques (such as incremental metadata snapshots) when needed by enabling additional direct transfers of data between two cloud controllers. Such techniques can be used to craft “metadata deltas” that support fast, granular interaction between two (or more) clients that are working on the same set of files via different cloud controllers), and restricting the second application from access to the metadata within the header of the object, (See Bannister paragraph [0054], the user can initiate tasks that involve intensive filesystem access and leverage data center latency and bandwidth instead of being restricted to the potentially limited bandwidth between the user's site and the cloud storage system), wherein modify operations targeting the in-use data within the in-use slots are blocked and operations targeting the unused or freed data within the unused slots are allowed, (See Bannister paragraph [0081], cloud controller 602 possess a shared secret 800 that can be used to facilitate the process of granting file access permissions to cloud service).
Bannister does not explicitly disclose attaching metadata to an object header of the object while preserving accessibility to user data stored within in-use slots as in-use data and preserving the object as a pseudo read only object where the in-use data of the object is unmodifiable and unused or freed data within unused slots of the object is readable.
However, MEISTER teaches attaching metadata to an object header of the object while preserving accessibility to user data stored within in-use slots as in-use data, (See MEISTER paragraph [0063], two storage controllers (e.g., 125a and 125b) provide storage services, such as a SCS) block storage array, a file server, an object server, a database or data analytics service, etc.) and preserving the object as a pseudo read only object where the in-use data of the object is unmodifiable and unused or freed data within unused slots of the object is readable, (See MEISTER paragraph [0081], data is handled with an index node or inode, which specifies a data structure that represents an object in a file system. The object could be a file or a directory, for example. Metadata may accompany the object, as attributes such as permission data, See MEISTER paragraph [0085], pseudo-random assignment is utilized only for assigning authorities to nodes because the set of nodes can change. The set of authorities cannot change)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify attaching metadata to an object header of the object while preserving accessibility to user data stored within in-use slots as in-use data and preserving the object as a pseudo read only object where the in-use data of the object is unmodifiable and unused or freed data within unused slots of the object is readable of MEISTER provide persistent data storage for the computing devices.
Claims 12 and 18 recite the same limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, claims
12 and 18 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, Bannister taught the method of claim 1, as described above. Bannister further teaches wherein the unused or freed data within unused slots of the object is modifiable, (See Bannister paragraph [0062], cloud controller 602 might logically partition off an unused portion of this exemplary /24 address space (e.g., a smaller /28 “sub-subnet” portion of the /24 subnet's address space) and allocate addresses from this sub-subnet to services that are instantiated in remote subnet 624).
Claims 13 and 19 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore, claims
13 and 19 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 3, Bannister taught the method of claim 1, as described above. Bannister further teaches wherein modify operations targeting the unused or freed data within the unused slots are allowed, (See Bannister paragraph [0081], cloud controller 602 possess a shared secret 800 that can be used to facilitate the process of granting file access permissions to cloud service).
Claims 14 and 20 recite the same limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore, claims
14 and 20 are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 4, Bannister taught the method of claim 1, as described above.
Bannister does not explicitly disclose comprising: storing system data as the metadata within the object header.
However, MEISTER teaches comprising: storing system data as the metadata within the object header, (See MEISTER paragraph [0170], the data blocks or segments store the data being snapshotted, (e) a header that may include a snapshot ID for a parent snapshot, a snapshot ID for a child snapshot, size information, a source volume ID, and one or more sorted tuples).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify comprising: storing system data as the metadata within the object header of MEISTER provide persistent data storage for the computing devices.
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 4 above. Therefore, claim
15 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 5, Bannister taught the method of claim 4, as described above Bannister further teaches comprising: providing the first application with access to the system data stored as the metadata within the object header, (See Bannister paragraph [0050], cloud controllers can treat the cloud storage system as an object store. Other cloud controllers receiving metadata updates can then access data from cloud files as needed); and
restricting the second application from accessing the system data stored as the metadata within the object header, (See Bannister paragraph [0054], the user can initiate tasks that involve intensive filesystem access and leverage data center latency and bandwidth instead of being restricted to the potentially limited bandwidth between the user's site and the cloud storage system).
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore, claim
16 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 6, Bannister taught the method of claim 4, as described above Bannister further teaches wherein the system data comprises analytics information, (See Bannister paragraph [0112], access to data analytics applications to the storage system 306 and users of the storage system 306).
Claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore, claim
17 is rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 7, Bannister taught the method of claim 1, as described above.
Bannister does not explicitly disclose wherein the metadata comprises path information of directory files and inode information of an inofile block.
However, MEISTER teaches wherein the metadata comprises path information of directory files and inode information of an inofile block, (See MEISTER paragraph [0077], [0081], Each authority may control a range of inode numbers, segment numbers, or other data identifiers which are assigned to data by a file system, by the storage nodes 150).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein the metadata comprises path information of directory files and inode information of an inofile block of MEISTER provide persistent data storage for the computing devices.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bannister et al. (US 2016/0277497 A1) in view of MEISTER et al. (US 2018/0356989 A1) and further in view of Stefanov et al. (US Patent No. 8, 706, 701 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Bannister taught the method of claim 1, as described above
Bannister together with MEISTER does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of versions of the object are maintained within the object store, and the method comprising: enforcing a rule that related read operations are to be directed to a same version of the object.
However, Stefanov teaches wherein a plurality of versions of the object are maintained within the object store, (See Stefanov Col. 9 lines 9-11, file node c' stores its unique file identifier id.sub.c (i.e., c), the number of blocks in c rank.sub.c and the root of c's file version tree Root-VT.sub.c), and the method comprising: enforcing a rule that related read operations are to be directed to a same version of the object, (See Stefanov Col. 9 lines 9-11,The random read/write operations illustrated in FIGS. 9A-9B are much slower than sequential ones. Random reads/writes cannot take full advantage of the version tree because consecutive blocks are unlikely to have the same version).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein the metadata comprises path information of directory files and inode information of an inofile block of Stefanov in order to authenticate file blocks more efficiently.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bannister et al. (US 2016/0277497 A1) in view of MEISTER et al. (US 2018/0356989 A1) in view of Stefanov et al. (US Patent No. 8, 706, 701 B1) and further in view of Brown (US 2003/0014598 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bannister taught the method of claim 8, as described above.
Bannister together with MEISTER and Stefanov does not explicitly disclose wherein the enforcing the rule comprises: comparing timestamp data returned for a first read operation and a second read operation for the object to determine whether the first read operation and the second read operation were executed upon the same version of the object based upon whether the timestamp data matches, wherein the first read operation and the second read operation are retried based upon a mismatch of the timestamp data, and wherein a timestamp is a modified time for the object that is unaffected by read operations to the object.
However, Brown teaches wherein the enforcing the rule comprises: comparing timestamp data returned for a first read operation and a second read operation for the object, (See Brown paragraph [0018], performing a delegated write, the delegated server may obtain at least a shared read lock on the unit of coherent data and validating a timestamp of the version of the unit of coherent data to be written), to determine whether the first read operation and the second read operation were executed upon the same version of the object based upon whether the timestamp data matches, (See Brown paragraph [0018], the delegated server may obtain at least a shared read lock on the unit of coherent data and validating a timestamp of the version of the unit of coherent data to be written. The delegated server may also notify one or more other servers to cancel any scheduled write, the one or more other servers may have for their versions of the unit of coherent data), wherein the first read operation and the second read operation are retried based upon a mismatch of the timestamp data, and wherein a timestamp is a modified time for the object that is unaffected by read operations to the object, (See Brown paragraph [0019], the delegating server may re-assume the writing of the version of the unit of coherent data, e.g. in the event of a "failure" of the delegated server. The writing may include updating a write timestamp of the unit of coherent data and invalidating one or more replicated copies of the version of the unit of coherent data on one or more other servers).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein the enforcing the rule comprises: comparing timestamp data returned for a first read operation and a second read operation for the object to determine whether the first read operation and the second read operation were executed upon the same version of the object based upon whether the timestamp data matches, wherein the first read operation and the second read operation are retried based upon a mismatch of the timestamp data, and wherein a timestamp is a modified time for the object that is unaffected by read operations to the object of Brown in order to organize storage devices into logical volumes, which may span multiple storage devices, or to logically divide up storage devices into one or more logical volumes.
Regarding claim 10, Bannister taught the method of claim 9, as described above
Bannister does not explicitly disclose wherein the first read operation is to the object header to obtain slot information of a slot and the second read operation is to the slot identified by the slot information.
However, MEISTER teaches wherein the first read operation is to the object header to obtain slot information of a slot and the second read operation is to the slot identified by the slot information, (See MEISTER paragraph [0170], a snapshot, such as snapshot (414) depicted in FIGS. 4A and 4B, may include metadata structured to specify one or more of the following: (a) a snapshot name or snapshot ID, (b) a group ID, such as a pgroup ID for NFS, (c) a time-to-live (TTL) value, (d) pointers or references to data blocks or segments, where the data blocks or segments store the data being snapshotted, (e) a header that may include a snapshot ID for a parent snapshot, a snapshot ID for a child snapshot, size information, a source volume ID, and one or more sorted tuples, where a tuple may include a start sector and an end sector, and where the tuple may correspond to a content file ID).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify wherein the first read operation is to the object header to obtain slot information of a slot and the second read operation is to the slot identified by the slot information of MEISTER provide persistent data storage for the computing devices.
Regarding claim 11, Bannister together with MEISTER and Stefanov taught the method of claim 8, as described above
Bannister together with MEISTER and Stefanov does not explicitly disclose wherein a new version of the object is created to comprise new user data that would otherwise overwrite current user data within a current version of the object.
However, Brown teaches wherein a new version of the object is created to comprise new user data that would otherwise overwrite current user data within a current version of the object, (See Brown paragraph [0019], the delegating server may re-assume the writing of the version of the unit of coherent data, e.g. in the event of a "failure" of the delegated server. The writing may include updating a write timestamp of the unit of coherent data and invalidating one or more replicated copies of the version of the unit of coherent data on one or more other servers).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein a new version of the object is created to comprise new user data that would otherwise overwrite current user data within a current version of the object of Brown in order to organize storage devices into logical volumes, which may span multiple storage devices, or to logically divide up storage devices into one or more logical volumes.
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure. See form PTO-892.
George et al. (US 11899620 B2), The present system provides the ability to detect changes in cloud objects in order to resolve what data of the cloud objects is the correct data. The present system provides the ability to perform defragmentation and garbage collection for cloud objects by a cloud service hosted by the cloud storage environment. Defragmentation and garbage collection are provided without affecting access to other in-use data within cloud objects (e.g., in-use snapshot data stored within a cloud object that is used by one or more applications at various remote computers). Danilov et al. (US 2020/0034471 A1) a method can comprise: generating, by a system comprising a processor, system snapshots of roots of respective search trees of the system—the system snapshots representing, via metadata of the search trees, respective states of the system over time; and determining, by the system, whether a data chunk corresponding to a system snapshot of the system snapshots that is older than remaining system snapshots of the system snapshots comprises an active object to facilitate preservation of the active object during a GC process until the active object has been referenced by at least one system snapshot of the system snapshots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUEMEBET GURMU whose telephone number is (571)270-7095. 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 5712724078. 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.
/MULUEMEBET GURMU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163