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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action corresponds to application 18/587370 which was filed on 2/26/2024 and is a CIP of 17/077,494 filed on 10/22/2020.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the reply filed 1/6/2026, claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21-22 have been cancelled and claims 23-24 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 10-20, and 23-24 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/6/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 1-4, 11, 13-20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlestein et al. (US2014/0317371, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Muhlestein, in view of Patwardhan et al. (US2021/0073081, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Patwardhan, and Klinkner et al. (US2014/0108519), hereinafter Klinkner.
Regarding Claim 1:
Muhlestein teaches:
A data storage system comprising: a memory storing instructions (Muhlestein, figure 1, note memory); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Muhlestein, figure 1, note processor) to:
establish, in a file system, a managed directory as metadata represented as a common shared data structure, wherein the common shared data structure is configured to be associated with one or more directory-level policies for the managed directory, wherein the path set comprises all files and directories of the directory tree of the managed directory (Muhlestein, figure 3 and 6-8, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note establishing use of access control list and access based enumeration for a managed directory which is metadata referenced by the files and directories in the managed directory, e.g., path set); and
establish an access policy for the managed directory, wherein the common shared data structure associates the access policy with all files and directories in the path set (Muhlestein, figure 3 and 6-8, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note establishing use of access control list and access based enumeration for a managed directory which is metadata referenced by the files and directories in the managed directory, e.g., path set);
receive a request to access files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Muhlestein, [0019, 0039], note user request for data);
determine, using the path set, that the managed directory is in effect for the files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Muhlestein, figure 3 and 6-8, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note filtering the requested directory/files based on ACLs and access-based enumeration (ABE), which is interpreted to mean it is determined that the directories/path sets are in effect since that is required to filter the requested directory/files based on ACLs and ABE); and
respond to the request based on the access policy for the managed directory (Muhlestein, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the use of the access policy to filter out content returned to the user, which is interpreted to mean the response is based on the access policy).
While Muhlestein teaches access policies, Muhlestein doesn’t specifically teach wherein the path set is established to manage group operations on the directory tree of the managed directory. However, Patwardhan is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Patwardhan teaches:
establish, in a file system, a managed directory as metadata represented as a common shared data structure referenced by all files and directories in a path set, wherein the path set comprises all files and directories of the directory tree of the managed directory and is established to manage directory-level group operations on the directory tree of the managed directory (Patwardhan, abstract, figures 2-3, [0013-0015, 0026-0027], note performing backup operations only on selected directories; note zones are interpreted as managed directories; note directory list); and
establish an access policy for the managed directory, wherein the common shared data structure associates the access policy with all files and directories in the path set (Patwardhan, abstract, figures 2-4, [0013-0015, 0026-0029], note evaluating file system operations on the managed directories to determine if the operation is allowed or not. When combined with the previously cited reference, this would include the access control as taught by Muhlestein);
receive a request to access files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Patwardhan, abstract, figures 2-4, [0013-0015, 0023, 0026-0029], note evaluating file system operations on the managed directories to determine if the operation is allowed or not, e.g., receiving a request to access the files and directories of the managed directory);
determine, using the path set, that the managed directory is in effect for the files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Patwardhan, abstract, figures 2-4, [0013-0015, 0023, 0026-0029], note evaluating file system operations comprises determining if the operation is for the selected directories/zones, which is interepted as determining, using the path set/directory, that the managed directory is in effect for the files and directory referenced by the operation); and
respond to the request based on the access policy for the managed directory (Patwardhan, abstract, figures 2-4, [0013-0015, 0023, 0026-0029], note evaluating file system operations; note if the operation is allowed, performing the operation. When combined with the previously cited reference, this would be for the access control as taught by Muhlestein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Patwardhan because all references are directed to data management and because Patwardhan would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the performance and efficiency of the system by only performing the operations, such as backups, only on the required data (Patwardhan, [0002-0004]).
While Muhlestein as modified teaches access policies, Muhlestein as modified doesn’t specifically teach establish, in a file system, a managed directory as metadata represented as a common shared data structure referenced by all files and directories in a path set, wherein the common shared data structure is configured to be associated with one or more directory-level policies for the manage director, wherein the path set comprises all files and directories of the directory tree of the managed directory and is established to manage directory-level group operations on the directory tree of the managed directory. However, Klinkner is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Klinkner teaches:
establish, in a file system, a managed directory as metadata represented as a common shared data structure referenced by all files and directories in a path set, wherein the common shared data structure is configured to be associated with one or more directory-level policies for the manage director, wherein the path set comprises all files and directories of the directory tree of the managed directory and is established to manage directory-level group operations on the directory tree of the managed directory (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0009, 0027, 0034, 0049-0050], note grouping managed objects; note that managed objects may represent any namespace, storage resource, volumes, etc.; note performing operations on the group of managed objects; note the NSM server stores pathnames/namespaces which is interpreted as common shared data structure referenced by all the files and directories in a path set. Since the grouped of managed objects are operated on as a group it is interpreted to be associated with a directory-level policy for that group)
establish an access policy for the managed directory, wherein the common shared data structure associates the access policy with all files and directories in the path set (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0025-0027, 0034, 0038, 0049-0050], note configuring the access to the directory data structure associated with the pathnames/namespaces is interpreted as establishing an access policy for the manage directory. When combined with the previous references this would include the access policies as taught previously);
receive a request to access files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Klinkner, figure 6, [0053] note initiate operation on group of managed objects);
determine, using the path set, that the managed directory is in effect for the files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0027, 0034, 0049-0050, 0053-0055], note performing operation on the group of managed objects requires using the pathnames/namespace for that group); and
respond to the request based on the access policy for the managed directory (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0027, 0034, 0038, 0049-0050, 0053-0055], note performing operation on the group of managed objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Klinkner because all references are directed to data management and because Klinkner would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data access which would improve the performance and efficiency of the system by allowing users to efficiently operation on groups of objects simultaneously (Klinkner, [0009, 0034]).
Regarding Claim 2:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein the access policy comprises a view policy (Muhlestein, figure 3 and 6-8, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the use of an access control list and access based enumeration which is interpreted as the access policy comprising a view policy).
Regarding Claim 3:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein the view policy comprises an access-based enumeration (ABE) policy (Muhlestein, figure 3 and 6-8, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the use of an access control list and access based enumeration which is interpreted as the access policy comprising a view policy).
Regarding Claim 4:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein the view policy defines a restriction based on an attribute of a source of a request to view files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Muhlestein, figure 5, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the view policy determines if the user has been permitted or validated to view the directory. The user is interpreted as an attribute of a source of a request).
Regarding Claim 11:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein the view policy defines a restriction based on file content and is configured to filter out files including file content that satisfies the restriction (Muhlestein, figure 5, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the view policy determines if the user has been permitted or validated to view the directory/file, which is interpreted as filtering out files that satisfies the restriction, e.g., not permitted or validated to access the file).
Regarding Claim 13:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein the access policy is configured to restrict creation of files and directories in the managed directory based on an attribute of a requestor (Muhlestein, figure 5, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the access policy determines if the user is permitted to access the directory/file, which is interpreted to mean restricting the creation of files and directories in the managed directory since the user cannot access it).
Regarding Claim 14:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein the access policy is configured to restrict writing of files in the managed directory based on an attribute of a requestor (Muhlestein, figure 5, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the access policy determines if the user is permitted to access the directory/file, which is interpreted to mean restricting the writing of files in the managed directory since the user cannot access it).
Regarding Claim 15:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein establishing the access policy for the managed directory comprises associating the access policy with a pseudo-directory mapped to the managed directory (Muhlestein, figures 2-6, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the file system manager keeps track of a directory structure of the data in the storage subsystem and also maintains an ABE data structure used for access based directory enumeration; note use of ACL entries and inodes) (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0025-0027, 0034, 0038, 0049-0050], note configuring the access to the directory data structure associated with the pathnames/namespaces; note providing a namespace service that translates a pathname to the actual location, e.g., a pseudo-directory mapped to the managed directory. When combined with the previously cited references the configuration would include the access policy teachings of Muhlestein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Klinkner because all references are directed to data management and because Klinkner would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data access which would improve the performance and efficiency of the system by allowing users to efficiently operation on groups of objects simultaneously (Klinkner, [0009, 0034]).
Regarding Claim 16:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein establishing the access policy for the managed directory comprises associating the access policy with a secondary share of the managed directory (Muhlestein, figure 5, [0005, 0019, 0027-0028, 0039, 0046], note establishing use of access control list and access based enumeration for a managed directory for multiple clients, which is interpreted to include any secondary shares of the managed directory since it is still applied to the managed directory for different clients).
Regarding Claim 17:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
wherein responding to the request based on the access policy for the managed directory (Muhlestein, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note user request for data) (Patwardhan, abstract, figures 2-4, [0013-0015, 0023, 0026-0029], note evaluating file system operations; note if the operation is allowed, performing the operation. When combined with the previously cited reference, this would be for the access control as taught by Muhlestein) comprises:
filtering, based on the request and the access policy, the files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Muhlestein, figure 3 and 6-8, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note filtering the requested directory/files based on ACLs and access-based enumeration (ABE)); and
providing, in response to the request, access to a subset of the files and subdirectories of the managed directory, wherein the subset excludes one or more files or subdirectories that are filtered out based on the access policy (Muhlestein, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the use of the access policy to filter out content returned to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Patwardhan because all references are directed to data management and because Patwardhan would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the performance and efficiency of the system by only performing the operations, such as backups, only on the required data (Patwardhan, [0002-0004]).
Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 18 is directed to a method while claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 17 respectively, except claim 19 is directed to a method while claim 17 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 17.
Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium while claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
establishing, in the file system, a pseudo-directory mapped to the managed directory (Muhlestein, figures 2-6, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the file system manager keeps track of a directory structure of the data in the storage subsystem and also maintains an ABE data structure used for access based directory enumeration; note use of ACL entries and inodes) (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0025-0027, 0034, 0038, 0049-0050], note providing a namespace service that translates a pathname to the actual location, e.g., a pseudo-directory mapped to the managed directory); and
establishing an access policy for the pseudo-directory, the access policy for the pseudo- directory different from the access policy for the managed directory (Muhlestein, figures 2-6, [0005, 0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the file system manager keeps track of a directory structure of the data in the storage subsystem and also maintains an ABE data structure used for access based directory enumeration; note use of ACL entries and inodes) (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0025-0027, 0034, 0038, 0049-0050], note configuring the access to the directory data structure associated with the pathnames/namespaces; note providing a namespace service that translates a pathname to the actual location, e.g., a pseudo-directory mapped to the managed directory; note the access policy for the pseudo-directory would differ from the managed directory since it is managed by a different server and has different credential requirements. When combined with the previously cited references the configuration would include the access policy teachings of Muhlestein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Klinkner because all references are directed to data management and because Klinkner would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data access which would improve the performance and efficiency of the system by allowing users to efficiently operation on groups of objects simultaneously (Klinkner, [0009, 0034]).
Regarding Claim 24:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Muhlestein as modified further teaches:
receiving, via the pseudo-directory, a second request to access files and subdirectories of the managed directory (Muhlestein, [0019, 0039], note user request for data) (Klinkner, figure 6, [0025-0027, 0034, 0049-0050, 0053] note initiate operation on group of managed objects; note this would use the pseudo-directory); and
responding to the second request based on the access policy for the pseudo-directory (Muhlestein, [0019, 0028, 0039, 0046], note the use of the access policy to filter out content returned to the user, which is interpreted to mean the response is based on the access policy) (Klinkner, figures 2-3 and 5-6, [0027, 0034, 0038, 0049-0050, 0053-0055], note performing operation on the group of managed objects, which would use the access policies for the pseudo-directory and managed directory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Klinkner because all references are directed to data management and because Klinkner would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data access which would improve the performance and efficiency of the system by allowing users to efficiently operation on groups of objects simultaneously (Klinkner, [0009, 0034]).
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlestein in view of Patwardhan, Klinkner, and Song et al. (US2007/0288487, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Song.
Regarding Claim 5:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
While Muhlestein as modified teaches restricting access, Muhlestein doesn’t specifically teach filter based on Internet Protocol (IP) address. However, Song is in the same field of endeavor, information retrieval, and Song teaches:
wherein the restriction is based on an Internet Protocol (IP) address (Song, [0006], note IP filtering).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Song because all references are directed to information retrieval and because Song would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the usability and security of the system by incorporating the use of IP filtering to block unauthorized devices (Song, [0006]).
Regarding Claim 6:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
While Muhlestein as modified teaches restricting access, Muhlestein doesn’t specifically teach filter based on Internet Protocol (IP) address. However, Song is in the same field of endeavor, information retrieval, and Song teaches:
wherein the restriction is based on a range of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (Song, [0006], note IP filtering).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Song because all references are directed to information retrieval and because Song would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the usability and security of the system by incorporating the use of IP filtering to block unauthorized devices (Song, [0006]).
Regarding Claim 7:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
While Muhlestein as modified teaches restricting access, Muhlestein doesn’t specifically teach filter based on geographic region. However, Song is in the same field of endeavor, information retrieval, and Song teaches:
wherein the restriction is based on a geographic region (Song, [0006], note IP filtering. IP address are associated with geographic regions and therefore filtering based on IP addresses is interpreted as filtering based on a geographic region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Song because all references are directed to information retrieval and because Song would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the usability and security of the system by incorporating the use of IP filtering to block unauthorized devices (Song, [0006]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlestein in view of Patwardhan, Klinkner, and Khurana et al. (US2021/0141920, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Khurana.
Regarding Claim 10:
Muhlestein as modified as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
While Muhlestein as modified as modified teaches restricting access, Muhlestein doesn’t specifically teach obfuscating data in files. However, Khurana is in the same field of endeavor, information retrieval, and Khurana teaches:
wherein the view policy defines a restriction based on file content and is configured to obfuscate data in files that satisfies the restriction (Khurana, [0033, 0042], note access policies to restrict file content and implementing data obfuscation to protect data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Khurana because all references are directed to information retrieval and because Khurana would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the usability and security of the system by protecting sensitive data using obfuscation (Khurana, [0033, 0042]).
Regarding Claim 12:
Muhlestein as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
While Muhlestein as modified teaches restricting access, Muhlestein doesn’t specifically teach encrypting content of files being accessed. However, Khurana is in the same field of endeavor, information retrieval, and Khurana teaches:
wherein the access policy is configured to encrypt content of files being accessed (Khurana, [0033, 0042], note access policies to restrict file content by encrypting data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Khurana because all references are directed to information retrieval and because Khurana would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in access control which would improve the usability and security of the system by protecting sensitive data using obfuscation/encryption (Khurana, [0033, 0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singh (US10152481) teaches common filesystem metadata to manage directories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 PM EST.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/JOHN J MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2152 2/5/2026
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152