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 .
The Amendment filed 11 August 2026 has been received and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta (US 11023433) in view of Manukonda (US 9715502) and further in view of Punadikar et al. (US 20200236141).
As per claims 1, 9, and 17, Datta et al. discloses an apparatus with memory/medium and logic (see Fig. 8 and column 16 line 64 through column 17 line 21) and method comprising: detecting an occurrence of an event related to a data file stored in a first computing platform; determining, based on the event, to replicate the data file to one of a plurality of computing platforms (see column 6 lines 10-40);
identifying attributes of the data file that require modification to replicate on the second cloud computing platform (see column 10 lines 39-66);
modifying the copy of the data file to comply with conventions of the second cloud computing platform (see column 10 lines 39-66 where the deep-copy is performed rather than stub synchronization); and
communicating the copy of the data file to the second cloud computing platform for storage thereon as modified (see column 10 line 66 through column 11 line 11).
While Datta et al. teaches the modification of replicated data based on attributes, there lacks an explicit recitation of dividing a copy of the data file into chunks; assigning the chunks to a set of copy containers; modifying the attributes of the chunks of the copy of the data file in parallel by respective copy containers of the set of copy containers to create modified chunks to comply with conventions of the second cloud computing platform; and communicating the modified chunks of the copy of the data file in parallel to the second cloud computing platform to reassemble and store the copy of the data file thereon as modified.
However, Manukonda teaches dividing a copy of the data file into chunks; assigning the chunks to a set of copy containers; modifying the attributes of the chunks of the copy of the data file in parallel by respective copy containers of the set of copy containers to create modified chunks to comply with conventions of the second cloud computing platform; and communicating the modified chunks of the copy of the data file in parallel to the second cloud computing platform to reassemble and store the copy of the data file thereon as modified (see column 11 lines 19-33 and column 12 lines 35-51 where the chunks are placed in storage containers in the intermediate data storage system, modified to a format for the destination and sent to the destination all performed in parallel).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform chunking of Manukonda in the Datta et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow for the use of different types of storage and to allow for faster transfer.
The modified Datta et al. and Manukonda system fails to explicitly disclose selecting, based on a status of the data file, a second computing platform from the plurality of computing platforms.
However, Punadikar et al. teaches detecting an occurrence of an event related to a data file stored in a first computing platform; determining, based on the event, to replicate the data file to one of a plurality of computing platforms; selecting, based on a status of the data file, a second computing platform from the plurality of computing platforms (see paragraphs [0041], [0046]-[0049], and [0055]-[0057] where based on a migration policy for a file, i.e. event, the file is replicated to a platform based on based on the security policy of the file matching a security policy of the platform).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the selection of a cloud storage provider of Punadikar et al. in the modified Datta et al. and Manukonda system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to ensure the cloud provider properly secures the data.
As per claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 20, the modified Datta et al., Manukonda, and Punadikar et al. system discloses, as put forth above, the first cloud computing platform alone or with replicator or rules engines performs the steps of identifying the second cloud, identifying the attributes, modifying the attributes to comply with conventions, and transmitting the modified data file (see Datta et al. see column 6 line 62 through column 7 line 39 and column 10 line 22 through column 11 line 11 where the source cluster synchronization component performs the steps to replicate the data to the target cluster) and further discloses the component(s) performing these steps, i.e. the replicator or rules engine, at either the source or target locations (see Manukonda column 5 lines 9-27 and Punadikar et al. Fig. 1). Therefore, at a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the steps either at the source or the target cloud. Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow for flexibility in the system.
As per claims 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 19, the modified Datta et al., Manukonda, and Punadikar et al. system discloses the first cloud computing platform alone or with replicator or rules engines performs the steps of identifying the second cloud, identifying the attributes, modifying the attributes, and transmitting the modified data (see Datta et al. see column 6 line 62 through column 7 line 39 and column 10 line 22 through column 11 line 11 where the source cluster synchronization component performs the steps to replicate the data to the target cluster).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Datta et al., Manukonda, and Punadikar et al. system as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saad et al. (US 20200134197).
As per claims 2 and 3, the modified Datta et al., Manukonda, and Punadikar et al. system discloses the event involves creating the data file, modifying the data file, or updating the data file, and generally discloses the status of the file being based on security criteria (see Manukonda column 10 lines 6-14 and Punadikar et al. paragraphs [0041], [0046]-[0049], and [0055]-[0057]), but fails the status of the data file is critical, sensitive, or regulatory-related, wherein the status of critical is associated with data files related to operations of a network platform, the status of sensitive is associated with data files related to clients or users, and the status of regulatory-related is associated with data files related to governmental regulations or statutes.
However, Saad et al. teaches categorizing data into these types of groups the status of the data file is critical, sensitive, or regulatory-related, wherein the status of critical is associated with data files related to operations of a network platform, the status of sensitive is associated with data files related to clients or users, and the status of regulatory-related is associated with data files related to governmental regulations or statutes (see paragraph [0011]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the data categorization of Saad et al. in the policy determinations of the modified Datta et al., Manukonda, and Punadikar et al. system.
Motivation, as recognize by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow for more control and flexibility of the data.
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 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,635,642. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘642 claims anticipate the currently pending claims or are obvious over Datta et al., Manukonda, and/or Punadikar et al. as put forth above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,068,446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘446 claims anticipate the currently pending claims or are obvious over Datta et al., Manukonda, and/or Punadikar et al. as put forth above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,797,490. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘490 claims anticipate the currently pending claims or are obvious over Datta et al., Manukonda, and/or Punadikar et al. as put forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed towards data replication.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights