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 Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 02/12/2016.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant argument stating that the art rejection does not explicitly teach or suggest the co-location of snapshot, examiner respectfully disagrees.
(Paragraph [0032] of the instant specification discloses resource sharing within distributed environment. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sharing of snapshot with applications is co-location of the snapshot. Kucherov in Fig. 5 wherein multiple applications sharing physical infrastructure and paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0014], [0019] and [0095] teaches optimizing page size associated with a snapshot tree for each of the multiple applications sharing a storage array.
The 892 references also teach the sharing of snapshot among plurality of application:
Kumarasamy: paragraph [0291]
Buragohain: paragraph [0050]
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 14 and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 18 of copending Application No. 18530139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 16 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov (hereinafter Kucherov) US Publication No 20210240911 in view of Shilane et al (hereinafter Shilane) US Publication No 20190243702.
As per claim 1, Kucherov teaches:
A computer-implemented method for modifying snapshots of datasets distributed over a network, comprising:
receiving a request to modify a record in a snapshot of a dataset, wherein the snapshot comprises a plurality of records replicated across a plurality of applications, and wherein the snapshot is co-located in memory associated with each application;
(Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0010]-[0012], [0028] and [0033], wherein plurality of applications share the snapshot and wherein the update to the data is the record update)
modifying the snapshot in accordance with the request;
(Paragraphs [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0034], wherein a new snapshot (modified snapshot) is generated after the update to the data)
and transmitting the modified snapshot to the plurality of applications, wherein the snapshot at each of the plurality of applications is replaced with the modified snapshot.
(Paragraphs [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0034] and [0090], wherein a new snapshot (modified snapshot) wherein synchronizing the new snapshot with the snapshot tree is the replacement of the snapshot )
Kucherov does not explicitly teach receiving a request to modify a record in a snapshot of a dataset, wherein the snapshot comprises a compressed plurality of records replicated across a plurality of applications, however in analogous art of data management, Shilane teaches:
receiving a request to modify a record in a snapshot of a dataset, wherein the snapshot comprises a compressed plurality of records replicated across a plurality of applications,
(paragraphs [0050], [0055] and [0077])
duplicating an entry comprising information associated with the request across a plurality of buffers,
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0150], wherein the queue is the buffer according to paragraph [0103] of the instant specification)
wherein each buffer tracks modification requests associated with the snapshot, and wherein each of the plurality of applications accesses a buffer of the plurality of buffers to receive and store the entry in a portion of memory separate from the dataset, wherein the portion of the memory is accessed in response to a read request associated with the record that is received prior to the snapshot being modified in accordance with the request;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0080]-[0083], [0096], [0117] and [0150])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane by incorporating the teaching of Shilane into the method of Kucherov. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Shilane into the system of Kucherov for the purpose of deduplicate objects and reduce processing time.
As per claim 3, Kucherov and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request to modify the record includes at least one of adding, modifying, deleting or conditionally updating the record.
(Paragraph [0119])( Shilane)
As per claim 7, Kucherov and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request to modify the record is received as a flat record.
(Paragraph [0033])( Kucherov)
As per claim 9, Kucherov and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying the snapshot and transmitting the modified snapshot to the plurality of applications is performed over periodic intervals.
(Paragraph [0065])( Kucherov)
Claims 14 and 17 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims respectively corresponding to method claims 1 and 3 and they rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 3.
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Das et al (hereinafter Das) US Publication No. 20220164311.
As per claim 4, Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach portion of memory comprises a hash table of updates to records in the snapshot that have not been reflected in the plurality of records included in the snapshot, however in analogous art content management, Bach teaches:
portion of memory comprises a hash table of updates to records in the snapshot that have not been reflected in compressed the plurality of records included in the snapshot.
(Paragraph [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Bach by incorporating the teaching of Bach into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Bach into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of managing snapshot creation and data deduplication.
As per claim 5, Kucherov and Shilane and Das teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the hash table is indexed based on unique identifiers of records in the hash table.
(Paragraph [0040])(Das)
Claim 18 is non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 4 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Decker et al (hereinafter Decker) US Publication No. 20180336128.
As per claim 6, Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot, however in analogous art of content management, Decker teaches:
prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot.
(Paragraphs [0021] and [0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Decker by incorporating the teaching of Decker into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Decker into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of indexing content changes.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Decker et al (hereinafter Decker) US Publication No. 20180336128.
As per claim 8, Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot, however in analogous art of content management, Decker teaches:
prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot,
(Paragraphs [0021] and [0052])
wherein the offset value is used by the plurality of applications to determine that the entry in the portion of memory should be deleted.
(Paragraphs [0035] and [0056] and [0072])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Decker by incorporating the teaching of Decker into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Decker into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of indexing content changes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Kinney et al (hereinafter Kinney) US Patent No. 11868324.
As per claim 10, Kucherov and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein duplicating the entry comprises: creating a log entry associated with the request;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0080]-[0083], [0096], [0117] and [0150])( Shilane)
pushing the log entry to a message queue;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0080]-[0083], [0096], [0117] and [0150])( Shilane)
duplicating the entry across the plurality of buffers;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0150])(Shilane)
Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach waiting for an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers; and responsive to an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers, designating the log entry as committed, however in analogous art of content management, Kenney teaches:
waiting for an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers; and responsive to an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers, designating the log entry as committed.
(Column 4, lines 5-14 and column 12, lines 66-67 and column 13, lines 1-9 and column 18, lines 16-44)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Kinney by incorporating the teaching of Kinney into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Kinney into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of providing data integrity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Bathia et al (hereinafter Bathia) US Publication No. 20230224377.
As per claim 11, Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach message queue comprises a fixed-size double-ended queue, however in analogous art of content management, Bathla teaches:
message queue comprises a fixed-size double-ended queue.
(Paragraphs [0080]-[0082])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Bathia by incorporating the teaching of Bathia into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Bathia into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of managing queuing actions.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Drysdale et al (hereinafter Drysdale) US Publication No. 20180095750.
As per claim 12, Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach each of the plurality of buffers comprises a circular array of fixed size, however in analogous art of content management, Drysdale teaches:
each of the plurality of buffers comprises a circular array of fixed size.
(Paragraphs [0081] and [0092])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Drysdale by incorporating the teaching of Drysdale into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Drysdale into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of managing content manipulation across buffers.
Claim 20 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 12 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 12.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Ahrens et al (hereinafter Ahrens) US Publication No. 20160224259.
As per claim 13, Kucherov and Shilane do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of applications is associated with a content streaming platform, however in analogous art of content management, Ahrens teaches:
wherein the plurality of applications is associated with a content streaming platform.
(Paragraph [0028])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Kucherov and Shilane and Ahrens by incorporating the teaching of Ahrens into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Ahrens into the system of Kucherov and Shilane for the purpose of managing content communication and improving throughput.
Claim 15 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 13 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 04/07/2026
Prosecution Insights