DETAILED ACTION
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed April 29, 2025.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12 and 15-18 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered and some are persuasive, while others are not. Accordingly, rejections have been removed where arguments were persuasive, but rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, a new rejection based on the newly added amendments have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected and this action has been made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and arguments presented on 04/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented in this office action.
Objection
Claims 1-20 are objected because of the following reasons:
In claims 1, 10 and 15 recited the limitations of “its associated one or more second type”. The pronoun “its” is improper and should be replaced with the noun to which it refers. Appropriate correction is required.
Amended claims 1, 10 and 15 recited the limitation “actions to resolve dependencies”. It is unclear what is actions. Also, resolve is not necessarily work all the time. Such if does not resolve the steps of the claims would not perform. The limitations are confusing, does not given weight, does not further limit and does not distinguish from the prior art of record. The terms can change as ‘configured to’.
Dependent claims are objected for incorporating the same deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayzenberg et al. (US 2020/0409974 A1), hereinafter Ayzanberg in view of Kannan et al. (US 2021/0173588 A1), hereinafter Kannan.
As for claim 1, Ayzenberg teaches a method, comprising: performing, by a computing system, a first replication between a source file system in a source storage device and a first target file system in a first storage device, the source storage device comprising one or more connected data centers (see [0015], e.g., progress data while replicating a snapshot, replicating the second snapshot to a remote storage system, comprising replicating all the blocks in the storage object determined to be different between the first and the second snapshots, [0021], any type of servers or a cluster of one or more servers access to shared data and/or backup);
and the first target storage device comprising one or more connected data centers; downloading, by the computing system, one or more key-value pairs of a binary tree (B-tree) by the first target file system, the key-value pairs of the B-tree comprising a first type of information and its associated one or more second type of information, the one or more second type of information being dependent on the first type of information for processing (see [0037], B+ tree data structure to keep track of changes; The B+ tree persistent data structure is used to manage logical object addresses, where every leaf of a tree points to a physical block. B+ tree parts (i.e., subtrees) shared between several B+ trees (i.e., between several tree roots), [0015], e.g., replicating blocks in a remote storage);
and performing, by the computing system, actions to…….on the first type of information and the second type of information downloaded by the first target file system, the actions to ……. comprising: for the second type of information, determining whether the first type of information has been downloaded before (see [0021], e.g., users or client systems with access to shared data and/or to back up (or restore) data (e.g., mission critical data). Storage system provide storage services to clients or users via a variety of access interfaces and/or protocols, [0032], e.g., a snapshot is taken immediately before a replication starts. The snapshot records information of the file system at a point in time);
and creating a dummy entry with the first type of information in the B-tree in the first target file system in accordance with the determination that the first type of information has not been downloaded before, wherein creating the dummy entry comprises a lock from each cache level and the B-tree to….condition (see [0024], deduplication logic 107 may choose not to store a segment in a storage unit if the segment has been previously stored in the storage unit. In the event that deduplication logic chooses not to store the segment in the storage unit, [0039], B+ tree corresponding to the snapshot. Returns all regions in the VSAN object that are different between two particular snapshots, [0045], e.g., the nodes that do not have any descendant that points to a block that has not been replicated (e.g., lock), [0049], e.g., tree structure is updated upon completion of replication of each data slice).
Ayzanberg teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitations of “resolve dependencies; to prevent a race condition”; However, in the same field of endeavor, Kannan teaches the limitations of “resolve dependencies; to prevent a race condition” (see [0086], e.g., one storage controller prevent the other storage controller from accessing or continuing to access the storage device. This could be used, for example, detects that the other controller is not functioning properly or where the interconnect between the two storage controllers itself not be functioning properly).
Ayzanberg and Kannan both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as snapshot and replicating data in a storage system, tree structure and replicating datablocks are updated associated with data replication. Distributed data across storage nodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kannan’s teaching to Ayzanberg system to facilitate delivery of cloud services to the storage system and users of the storage system. Thus, enabling organization to save space on their on-premises storage systems. A cloud storage gateway to emulate a disk array, a block-based device or other appropriate command into representational state transfer protocols facilitate communications with the cloud service providers (see Kannan, [0133]).
As for claim 10,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 10 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kannan’s teaching to Ayzanberg system to facilitate delivery of cloud services to the storage system and users of the storage system. Thus, enabling organization to save space on their on-premises storage systems. A cloud storage gateway to emulate a disk array, a block-based device or other appropriate command into representational state transfer protocols facilitate communications with the cloud service providers (see Kannan, [0133]).
As for claim 15,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 15 is a system claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kannan’s teaching to Ayzanberg system to facilitate delivery of cloud services to the storage system and users of the storage system. Thus, enabling organization to save space on their on-premises storage systems. A cloud storage gateway to emulate a disk array, a block-based device or other appropriate command into representational state transfer protocols facilitate communications with the cloud service providers (see Kannan, [0133]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
further comprising using a dummy crypto key associated with the first type of information in the created dummy entry for processing the second type of information during the first replication (see Ayzenberg, [0027], [0060]; Also see, Kannan, [0139]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
further comprising updating all levels of caches in the first target file system with the dummy crypto key associated with the first type of information (see Ayzanberg, [0023]-[0024]; Also see, Kannan, [0139]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
wherein the actions to resolve the dependencies further comprise, for the first type of information, determining whether the dummy entry with the first type of information has been created in the B-tree (see Ayzanberg, [0026], [0037]; Also see, Kannan, [0086]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
further comprising, for the first type of information, creating an entry in the B-tree based on the downloaded first type of information in accordance with the determination that the dummy entry with the first type of information has not been created (see Ayzanberg, [0021], [0026], [0037]; Also see, Kannan, [0109]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
further comprising: for the first type of information, consolidating information in the dummy entry and the downloaded first type of information in accordance with the determination that the dummy entry with the first type of information has been created; wherein the consolidating comprises reusing a dummy crypto key in the dummy entry and replacing second information in the dummy entry with the downloaded first type of information (see Ayzanberg, [0023]-[0024], [0030]; Also see, Kannon, [0139]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
wherein creating a dummy entry with the first type of information in the B-tree is an atomic operation, the atomic operation being configured to create the dummy entry by one of a set of processing threads processing the associated one or more second type of information in parallel (see Ayzanberg, [0016], [0037], [0059]; Also see, Kannan, [0006], [0055]).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
wherein: the first type of information comprises a parent directory iNode and a crypto key associated with the parent directory iNode, the associated one or more second type of information comprises child files associated with the parent directory iNode, and the crypto key associated with the parent directory iNode is configured to encrypt and decrypt file names of the child files (see Ayzanberg, [0037], [0048]; Also see, Kannan, [0139]).
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
wherein: the first type of information comprises a file iNode and a crypto key associated with the file iNode, the associated one or more second type of information comprises file data blocks associated with the file iNode, and the crypto key associated with the file iNode is configured to encrypt and decrypt data in file data blocks (see Ayzanberg, [0015], [0021], [0048]; Also see, Kannan, [0047], [0139]).
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Ayzanberg and Kannan teach:
wherein the actions to resolve the dependencies further comprise: for the first type of information, determining whether the dummy entry with the first type of information has been created in the B-tree; creating an entry in the B-tree based on the downloaded first type of information in accordance with the determination that the dummy entry with the first type of information has not been created; and consolidating information in the dummy entry and the downloaded first type of information in accordance with the determination that the dummy entry with the first type of information has been created; wherein the consolidating comprising reusing a dummy crypto key in the dummy entry and replacing second information in the dummy entry with the downloaded first type of information (see Ayzanberg, [0021], [0026], [0037], [0045]; Also see, Kannan, [0139], [0155]).
Claims 11, 13 and 14 correspond in scope to claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 16-20 correspond in scope to claims 2, 3, 7-9 and 12 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
8. US 2020/0257700 A1 teaches authenticate the first client and replicate the resources. In response to upgrading global resources at the first data center to a new version, embodiments generate a manifest file including a listing of global resource types and schemas that are modified or added in response to the upgrading ([0004]).
US 2009/0138480 A1 teaches file system contain information determining which node(s) each of the files is stored, whereas each node contains the catalog of where each file exists on which server(s) within that node. Each node autonomously controls the placement of files within itself and the logical file system simply knows that the file exists somewhere within that node ([0011]).
WO2023/244601 A1 teaches source and target file system with regions. Synchronize cross-region operations. Subsequently perform resource clean up among source and target file system ([0005]).
Also see US 20190171497, US 20190235917, US 20230409442, US 20230409559, US 20230412375, US 20230409597, US 8700855, US 20200257700, US 5806075, US 20090144224, US 20120323844, US 20150120893, US 20090144284, US 20160359976, US 9760358, US 8522252, US 8271992, US 20160359963, US 20090144422, US 20230409535, US 20230409559, US 20230409522, US 20090138481, US 8332375, these references also teaches the claim recited limitations. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
9. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(f)).
10. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96). Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
11. 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 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 date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
06/25/25
Prosecution Insights