DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 04, 2025 has been entered.
In response to the application filed on December 04, 2025, claims 8-20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 12/04/2025. In this action Claim(s) 8-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (US Pub. No. 20220244858) and Botelho et al. (US Pub. No. 20220374519) in view of Rath et al. (US Pub. No. 20220222074) and Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (US Pub. No. 20220244858) and Botelho et al. (US Pub. No. 20220374519) and Rath et al. (US Pub. No. 20220222074) in further view of NARA (US Pub. No. 20210286684). The Rath et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of performing a garbage collection optimization procedure that removes a need to disable the garbage collection procedure at the backup storage server and the metadata backup server subsequent to the rollback recovery process, wherein the garbage collection optimization procedure comprises generating dummy metadata backups and/or writing tags corresponding to the second set of data backups, the dummy metadata backups and/or tags causing prevents the garbage collection procedure to skip over or defer removal of the second set of data backups at least until the retention locks of the second set of data backups have expired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 9 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support for “includes retention information that prevents deletion of its corresponding data backup until the retention lock has expired.”
Dependent claims 10-14 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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.
Claim(s) 8-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (US Pub. No. 20220244858) and Botelho et al. (US Pub. No. 20220374519) in view of Rath et al. (US Pub. No. 20220222074).
With respect to claim 8, Grunwald et al. teaches a method, comprising:
providing, during a rollback recovery process, a current namespace of a backup storage server, the current namespace including a plurality of data backups including a first set of data backups that were restored from a point-in-time copy and a second set of data backups that are retention locked in the current namespace, wherein the second set of data backups cannot be removed by a garbage collection procedure due to the retention locks (Paragraph 470 discloses recovery dataset may include a snapshot, a backup dataset, an ordered log of metadata describing an ordered application of updates to data maintained by the storage system, and/or any other suitable data structure that may be used to restore data to an uncorrupted state. The recovery dataset 400 may be for all data stored by the storage system, data stored on a particular storage structure (e.g., a volume), data associated with a particular host, and/or any other subset of data stored by the storage system and 474 discloses system 400 may direct the storage system to lock down the recovery dataset, make the recovery dataset read-only, make the recovery dataset hidden, and/or otherwise protect the recovery dataset). Grunwald et al. does not disclose providing, during the rollback recovery process, a recovery metadata backup of a metadata backup server including metadata backups, wherein the metadata backup server has no knowledge of the second set of data backups after the rollback recovery process
However, Botelho et al. teaches providing, during the rollback recovery process, a recovery metadata backup of a metadata backup server including metadata backups, wherein the metadata backup server has no knowledge of the second set of data backups after the rollback recovery process (Paragraph 95 discloses distributed metadata store 110 may also be used to store a backup schedule for the virtual machine and a list of snapshots for the virtual machine that are stored using the storage appliance 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Grunwald et al. with Botelho et al. This would have facilitated enhanced retention and rollback. See Botelho et al. Paragraphs 8-24.
Grunwald et al. as modified by Botelho et al. does not disclose performing a garbage collection optimization procedure that removes a need to disable the garbage collection procedure at the backup storage server and the metadata backup server subsequent to the rollback recovery process, wherein the garbage collection optimization procedure comprises generating dummy metadata backups and/or writing tags corresponding to the second set of data backups, the dummy metadata backups and/or tags causing prevents the garbage collection procedure to skip over or defer removal of the second set of data backups at least until the retention locks of the second set of data backups have expired.
However, Rath et al. teaches performing a garbage collection optimization procedure that removes a need to disable the garbage collection procedure at the backup storage server and the metadata backup server subsequent to the rollback recovery process, wherein the garbage collection optimization procedure comprises generating dummy metadata backups and/or writing tags corresponding to the second set of data backups, the dummy metadata backups and/or tags causing prevents the garbage collection procedure to skip over or defer removal of the second set of data backups at least until the retention locks of the second set of data backups have expired (Paragraph 27 discloses a backup policy may require that, even for data that is deleted, the backup for the deleted data is kept for a predetermined period of time (e.g., two weeks). After the expiration of such time, if no other data refers to such segments, then they can be deemed as ‘dead’ and Paragraph 27 discloses The garbage collector marks each of the one or more objects for deletion or for lock extension and Paragraph 36 discloses Based on processing this metadata, the garbage collector can determine the status of each of the data objects, e.g., which objects contain live segments, a mix of live and dead segments, or only dead segments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Grunwald et al. and Botelho et al. with Rath et al. This would have facilitated enhanced retention and rollback. See Rath et al. Paragraphs 2-7.
The Grunwald Botelho et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 9, Rath et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the garbage collection optimization procedure comprises:
generating a dummy metadata backup for each backup in the second set of backups, the dummy metadata backups configured to be used during a synchronization process that comprises determining if the plurality of data backups included on the backup storage server have corresponding metadata backups included on the metadata server, wherein each the dummy metadata backups includes retention information that prevents deletion of its corresponding data backup until the retention lock has expired (Paragraph 27 discloses a backup policy may require that, even for data that is deleted, the backup for the deleted data is kept for a predetermined period of time (e.g., two weeks). After the expiration of such time, if no other data refers to such segments, then they can be deemed as ‘dead’ and Paragraph 27 discloses The garbage collector marks each of the one or more objects for deletion or for lock extension and Paragraph 36 discloses Based on processing this metadata, the garbage collector can determine the status of each of the data objects, e.g., which objects contain live segments, a mix of live and dead segments, or only dead segments). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 8 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Rath et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 9.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9. With respect to claim 10, Botelho et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the dummy metadata backup includes only a retention time for each backup in the second set of backups (Paragraph 158 discloses consolidate and garbage collect (GC) logs out of the applicable retention window as soon as possible to improve recovery times and save space as well). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 9 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Botelho et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 10.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 10. With respect to claim 11, Botelho et al. teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the second set of backups can be deleted once the retention time for each backup in the second set of backups has expired (Paragraph 149 discloses old logs may be eligible for expiration or garbage collection depending on the assigned SLA policy). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 10 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Botelho et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 11.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 10. With respect to claim 12, Botelho et al. teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the retention time for each backup in the second set of backups is retrieved from a backup file directory of the backup storage server (Paragraph 279 discloses distributed file system protocol also allows the VM 5504 to mount a directory or a portion of a file system located within the DMS node 5514). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 10 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Botelho et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 12.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9. With respect to claim 13, Botelho et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the dummy metadata backups are generated in response to receiving a notice that backup storage server is unable to delete the second set of data backups that are retention locked (Paragraph 145 discloses snapshot may be a “must-have” snapshot and, if so, will be replicated to make the logs recoverable on the replication target. In some examples, a new chain is added to the list on various conditions: for example, a replication on a previous log chain falls out of a retention window for any of the VM disks, or a CDP effort is broken on the source and is then restarted, or a replication encounters an error (for example, a network error or other fault) which results in a log being marked with an error message). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 9 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Botelho et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 13.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9. With respect to claim 14, Botelho et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the dummy metadata backups are generated in response to determining that the second set of data backups are not part of the first set of data backups or a third set of data backups that that were restored from a point-in-time copy and that are retention locked using a comparison procedure (Paragraph 235 discloses once the FMD file has been generated, it is compared with the FMD file from the previous snapshot to compute a diffFMD file, for example diff FMD file 4502 in FIG. 45. This diffFMD file 4502 contains a list of entries corresponding to files that have been created, deleted, or modified, and may include a complete log of the file changes that have taken place on the backup). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 9 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Botelho et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 14.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 20, Botelho et al. teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining an amount of storage capacity each of the second set of data backups will occupy while they are retention locked (Paragraph 94 discloses the cluster may automatically discover the additional nodes and automatically increase the available capacity of the file system for storing files and other data). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 8 provided above, combining the Grunwald et al. reference and the Botelho et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 20.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (US Pub. No. 20220244858) and Botelho et al. (US Pub. No. 20220374519) and Rath et al. (US Pub. No. 20220222074) in further view of NARA (US Pub. No. 20210286684).
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 15, Grunwald et al. as modified by Botelho et al. does not disclose writing a tag for each of the second set of data backups in a file directory of the backup storage server, the tags being configured to be used during a synchronization process that comprises determining if the plurality of data backups included on the backup storage server have corresponding metadata backups included on the metadata server, the tags directing the synchronization process to skip over each of the second set of data backups during the synchronization process.
However, NARA discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the garbage collection optimization procedure comprises:
writing a tag for each of the second set of data backups in a file directory of the backup storage server, the tags being configured to be used during a synchronization process that comprises determining if the plurality of data backups included on the backup storage server have corresponding metadata backups included on the metadata server, wherein each tag includes retention time data and directs the synchronized process to skip over each of the second set of backups until the retention time has expired (Paragraph 68 discloses user-supplied tags and Paragraph 73 discloses restoring data and/or metadata if an original version is lost (e.g., by deletion, corruption, or disaster); allowing point-in-time recovery; complying with regulatory data retention and electronic discovery (e-discovery) requirements; reducing utilized storage capacity in the production system and/or in secondary storage; facilitating organization and search of data; improving user access to data files across multiple computing devices and/or hosted services; and implementing data retention and pruning policies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Grunwald et al. and Botelho et al. and Rath et al. with NARA. This would have facilitated enhanced retention and rollback. See NARA Paragraphs 3-7.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. and NARA teaches all the limitations of claim 15. With respect to claim 16, NARA teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the tags includes a retention time for each backup in the second set of backups (Paragraph 117 discloses different retention rules). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 15 provided above, combining the Botelho et al. reference and the NARA reference is applicable to dependent claim 16.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. and NARA teaches all the limitations of claim 16. With respect to claim 17, NARA teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the second set of backups can be deleted once the retention time for each backup in the second set of backups has expired (Paragraph 117 discloses different retention rules). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 16 provided above, combining the Botelho et al. reference and the NARA reference is applicable to dependent claim 17.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. and NARA teaches all the limitations of claim 15. With respect to claim 18, NARA teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the tags are generated in response to the backup storage server being unable to delete the second set of data backups that are retention locked (Paragraph 242 discloses tags relevant to a compliance task and/or business objective). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 15 provided above, combining the Botelho et al. reference and the NARA reference is applicable to dependent claim 18.
The Grunwald et al. reference as modified by Botelho et al. and Rath et al. and NARA teaches all the limitations of claim 15. With respect to claim 19, NARA teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the tags are generated in response to determining that the second set of data backups are not part of the first set of data backups or a third set of data backups that were restored from a point-in-time copy and that are retention locked using a comparison procedure (Paragraph 242 discloses tags relevant to a compliance task and/or business objective). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 15 provided above, combining the Botelho et al. reference and the NARA reference is applicable to dependent claim 19.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20210271561 is directed to GLOBAL SNAPSHOT BACKUPS OF A DISTRIBUTED NAME SPACE: [0021] The data generated or sourced by system 100 may be stored in any number of persistent storage locations and devices, such as local client or server storage. The storage devices represent protection storage devices that serve to protect the system data through the backup process 112. Thus, backup process 112 causes or facilitates the backup of this data to the storage devices of the network, such as network storage 114, which may at least be partially implemented through storage device arrays, such as RAID (redundant array of independent disks) components. In an embodiment network 100 may be implemented to provide support for various storage architectures such as storage area network (SAN), Network-attached Storage (NAS), or Direct-attached Storage (DAS) that make use of large-scale network accessible storage devices 114, such as large capacity disk (optical or magnetic) arrays. The data sourced by the data source may be any appropriate data, such as database data that is part of a database management system within a data center comprising a server or servers and other clients, and the data may reside on one or more hard drives (e.g., 114) for the database(s) in a variety of formats. The backup server 102 may be a server running Networker or Avamar data protection software backing up to Data Domain protection storage, such as provided by Dell/EMC™ Corporation. However, other similar backup and storage systems are also possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154