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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Amended claims 1-7 are pending and remain for further examination.
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the claims 1-7 filed on November 05, 2025 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Igarashi et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,848 A) in view of Ngo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0358621 A1).
As to claim 1, Igarashi et al teach a data recovery method for recovering data stored in a storage system (see abstract, figures 2-3, column 3 lines 9-37), the data recovery method (see figures 9-13) comprising: causing a storage device to hold original data (figure 2, column 4 lines 28-34, figure 7, column 6 lines 35-48, management server stores original information); causing an analyzing server including a data analyzing unit to hold copy data that is a copy of the original data, and generate formatted data obtained by formatting the copy data for analysis (figure 3, column 4 line 63 to column 5; figure 6, column 6 lines 18-35, each server stores operation history for each work-flow system); and causing a managing server to hold the copy data and data history management information storing a history of the formatted data (figure 3, column 4 lines 52-62, figure 7, column 6 lines 35-48, management server stores data identical to the historical information stored in the each server).
However, Igarashi et al do not teach that causing a data recovery unit to detect a security threat in the data, refer to the original data and identify an entry of data that requires recovery from the original data due to the security threat detected, search the data history management information for a latest set of the copy data or the formatted data relating to the entry of data that is normal, select the copy data or the formatted data as recovery data, and recover the entry of data from the selected recovery data when the security threat is detected in the data.
Ngo teaches that causing a data recovery unit to detect a security threat in the data (par. 0024, detecting security threat), refer to the original data and identify an entry of data that requires recovery from the original data due to the security threat detected (pars. 0075-0077, recovering data), search the data history management information for a latest set of the copy data or the formatted data relating to the entry of data that is normal, select the copy data or the formatted data as recovery data, and recover the entry of data from the selected recovery data when the security threat is detected in the data (pars. 0079, 0092, 0108-019, using data history and formatted data as recovery data in response to the security threat detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ngo stated above with the method of Igarashi et al for recovering the data from the selected recovery data when a security threat is detected in the data because it would have efficiently verified changes and updates that are to be implemented in response to various security threats without risking the security of a backup system.
As to claim 2, Ngo teach that it is determined that the security threat is detected when an error occurs in a process of formatting the data or a process of analyzing the data (pars. 0020, 0024, 0077, 0079, 0086, column 1 lines 15-37, column 2 lines 26-47).
As to claim 3, Igarashi et al teach that the data history management information includes flag information indicating that data processed without an error is normal, and the data recovery unit uses, as the recovery data, data for which the flag information indicates normal (figures 5-6, column 5 line 42 to column 6 lines 34).
As to claim 4, Igarashi et al teach that the storage device performs a backup process of backing up data to other storage, the data history management information includes time information indicating a time when the original data is processed, and the data recovery unit selects the latest set of the copy data or the formatted data as the recovery data based on time information indicating a time when a copy process and the backup process are performed (figures 7-8, column 6 line 35 to column 7 line 23).
As to claim 5, Igarashi et al teach that process types of the data history management information include types of copy, formatting, and analysis, and the data recovery unit selects the latest set of the copy data or the formatted data as the recovery data in order of copying, formatting, and analysis (column 5 line52 to column 6 line 35).
As to claim 6, Igarashi et al teach that the data history management information includes Similarity information indicating a difference from the original data, prior to any processing, when a process type of the data history management information is formatting or analysis, an output unit outputs a Similarity of the selected data, and when an input unit receives information indicating approval of use of the selected recovery data, the data recovery unit uses the selected data as the recovery data (figure 7, column 6 lines 35-48, figures 9-11, column 7 line 64 to column 8 line 49).
As to claim 7, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 above, since claim 7 is merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the method claim 1, and claim 7 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the claims 1-7 filed on November 05, 2025 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references. The examiner has attempted to answer (response) to the remarks (arguments) in the body of the Office Action (see new rejection of claims 1-7).
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.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Millar et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216629 A1.
b. Rusenas et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0136862 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453January 23, 2026