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 .
Response to Restriction
Applicant’s Restriction arguments, see remark on page 1, filed on 7/15/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been acknowledged. The applicant elects, without traverse, Group I, claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, line 4, the term “the data” has no antecedent basis. Is “the data” referring to the original data file or the N segments of data in claim 1?
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 factual inquiries 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.
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) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volvovski et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0084035) in view of Ke et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0365434).
Regarding claim 1, Volvovski et al. discloses a method of storing an original data file in a communication network comprising:
splitting the original data file into N ordered segments, where N is an integer greater than 1 (Volvovski et al. see fig. 1, DS processing unit 16 and data file 38; para. 0033, 0034; The DS processing unit 16 receives the data file 38 and/or data block 40 via its interface 30 and performs a distributed storage (DS) process 34 thereon (e.g., an error coding dispersal storage function). The DS processing 34 begins by partitioning the data file 38 and/or data block 40 into one or more data segments,). The original data file is partitioned into plurality of N data segments (e.g., N is more than 1) and then further slices each data segment into EC data slices 42-48;
assigning each of the N segments to a node of the network capable of storing data (Volvovski et al. see fig. 1, EC slice 42-48; para. 0035-0037; The number of DS units 36 receiving the EC slices 42-48 is dependent on the distributed data storage parameters established by the DS managing unit 18.). The EC slices 42-48 (e.g., N segments) are assigned to a DS unit 36(s) for storing based on the distributed data storage parameters;
transmitting each of the N segments to the network node (read as DS unit 36 and/or DSN memory 22 in fig. 1) to which it has been assigned (Volvovski et al. see fig. 1, DS unit 36 and memory 22; para. 0036, 0037; The DS processing unit 16 transmits the plurality of EC slices 42-48 to a plurality of DS units 36 of the DSN memory 22.). The EC slices 42-48 are transmitted to different DS units 36 of the DSN memory 22;
constructing a key (read as the unique slice name in para. 0053) containing information as to the network node at which each segment of the original data file is stored and an order of the segments (Volvovski et al. see para. 0035, 0053; For each EC slice 42-48, the DS processing unit 16 creates a unique slice name and appends it to the corresponding EC slice 42-48. The slice name includes universal DSN memory addressing routing information (e.g., virtual memory addresses in the DSN memory 22) and user-specific information (e.g., user ID, file name, data block identifier, etc.). In para. 0053, The slice name 37 includes a universal routing information field and a vault specific field… The vault specific field includes a data name, which includes a file ID and a segment number). The DS processing unit 16 creates a unique slice name, containing the order of the segments.
However, Volvovski et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature for deleting the original data file.
Ke et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature for deleting the original data file (Ke et al. see fig. 4, step 412; see para. 0059, 0060; delete the streaming media file.). The streaming media file (e.g., source/original file) is deleted.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Volvovski et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Ke et al. to delete the source/original file.
The motivation would be to save storage space.
Regarding claim 6, Volvovski et al. discloses the feature for reconstructing the original data file by: retrieving the key; determining the locations of the N segments of the original data file and the order of the segments based on the key; retrieving the segments via the network; and reassembling the segments into the original data file (Volvovski et al. see fig. 3, access module 80 and grid module 82; fig. 4, units 83-89; para. 0053-0058, 0065; The access module 80 reconstructs the data object from the data segments and the gateway module 78 formats the data object for transmission to the user device.). Fig. 3 shows the grid module 82 for creating/recreating data segments to/from the number of slices and the access module 80 constructing/reconstructing the data object to/from the data segments. Fig. 4 also shows forward and reverse functions for reconstructing the data segment from number of slices based on slice name or key.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volvovski et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0084035) in view of Ke et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0365434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klum et al. (Pub No.: 2014/0136832).
Regarding claim 2, Volvovski et al. in view of Ke et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the assigning of each of the N segments to a node of the network comprises randomly assigning each of the N segments to one of M nodes of the network, where M is an integer greater than 1.
Klum et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the assigning of each of the N segments to a node of the network comprises randomly assigning each of the N segments to one of M nodes of the network, where M is an integer greater than 1 (Klum et al. see para. 0012, 0013; the plurality of data segment receiving locations can be randomly selected from a user generated list of possible data segment receiving locations).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Volvovski et al. in view of Ke et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Klum et al. to randomly select data segments receiving locations.
The motivation would be to improve network security.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volvovski et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0084035) in view of Ke et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0365434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Pub No.: 2024/0037084).
Regarding claim 5, Volvovski et al. in view of Ke et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature for storing the key at a memory location at which the original data file was stored and with the same name as the original data file.
Zhang et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature storing the key at a memory location at which the original data file was stored and with the same name as the original data file (Zhang et al. see para. 0062; For example, the target storage parameter “item name” may be used as the storage key value, and then, the original data and the change data that contain the same item name are stored into the same storage model). The original data and the change data having the same item name or the storage key may be stored into the same storage model
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Volvovski et al. in view of Ke et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Zhang et al. for storing the original data and the change date having the same key value in the same storage model.
The motivation would be to provide network efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note
The Applicant is welcome to request a telephonic interview if the Applicant has any questions or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cammarota et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0046808) discloses techniques for preventing side-channel attacks on a cache are provided. A method according to these techniques includes executing a software instruction indicating that a portion of software requiring data protection is about to be executed, setting the cache to operate in a randomized mode to de-correlate cache timing and cache miss behavior from data being processed by the portion of software requiring data protection responsive to the instruction indicating that the portion of software requiring data protection is about to be executed, executing the portion of software requiring data protection, storing the data being processed by the portion of software requiring data protection, and setting the cache to operate in a standard operating mode responsive to an instruction indicating that execution of the portion of software requiring data protection has completed.
Naraidoo et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0250327) discloses a method and system for secure storage of digital data offers enhanced resistance to threat actors (whether insiders or hackers) gaining unauthorised access to extract and manipulate data, and to brute force computational attacks. The method employs double randomised fragmentation of source data into a random number of fragments of random sizes, encryption of each fragment with a separate encryption key, storage of the encrypted fragments and keys and a catalogue of the mappings of locations and fragments to keys all in physically and logically separate locations in a secure storage estate (1). The method may be repeatedly applied to encrypted fragments, keys and catalogue in a cascade fragmentation process to add further levels of security.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am-7pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights