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 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 .
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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of app no: 18418840 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the similar limitations to produce the same end result.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The instant application and the referenced copending application are claiming common subject matter, for illustration purposes only the method claims are shown below:
Instant Application
18418840
1. A computer-implemented method for improving extent-based read performance of a file using data pre-fetches in a client-server network, comprising:
obtaining extent information for delta changes between a first generation backup file and a second generation backup file;
receiving, in a filesystem server and from a client, an instruction to create a new synthesized file corresponding to the extent information;
creating, upon receiving this instruction, a new synthesized file comprising extents of the extent information as contiguous data that can be read sequentially to leverage the benefits of the pre-fetches;
heading the synthesized file by a content handle; and
storing, in the filesystem server, the synthesized file in a stateful context data structure, which can be looked up by the client.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the content handle essentially comprises an inode-less file that does not impact a namespace of the filesystem.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
using, by the client, the server-side content handle when reading data associated with the synthesized file; and destroying, upon completion of the reading, the server-side content handle.
1. A computer-implemented method for improving extent-based read performance of a file using data pre-fetches in a client-server network, comprising: obtaining extent information for delta changes between a first generation backup file and a second generation backup file; receiving, in a filesystem server and from a client, an instruction to create a new synthesized file corresponding to the extent information; and creating, upon receiving this instruction, a new synthesized file comprising extents of the extent information as contiguous data that can be read sequentially to leverage the benefits of the pre-fetches.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising patching the extents into a target file that may be stored on different storage using the extent information.
7. The method of claim 3 wherein the filesystem includes a multi-streamed restore component providing multiple streams to issue read-ahead operations for the pre-fetches in parallel, and further wherein the pre-fetches move the data into the read-ahead cache using the multiple streams.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the system comprises a Change Based Tracking (CBT) system, and wherein the delta changes are synthesized into a backup file stored by the application as part of a backup operation.
4. The method of claim 3 wherein the extent information comprises a sequence of offsets and lengths, with each offset and length pair defining a corresponding extent of data added to the first generation backup file to synthesize the second generation backup file.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the extent information comprises a sequence of offsets and lengths, with each offset and length pair defining a corresponding extent of data added to the first generation backup file to synthesize the second generation backup file.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the pre-fetches move data from the extents into a read-ahead cache to be sent to an application of the client in response to a read request, and further wherein a prefetch generated by a pre-fetch request comprises a hint that a read input/output (I/O) operation is imminent for purposes of filling the read-ahead cache and preventing a need to issue a blocking I/O operation for the read request
4. The method of claim 3 wherein the pre-fetches move data from the extents into a read-ahead cache to be sent to an application of the client in response to a read request, and further wherein a prefetch generated by a pre-fetch request comprises a hint that a read input/output (I/O) operation is imminent for purposes of filling the read-ahead cache and preventing a need to issue a blocking I/O operation for the read request.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the benefits of the pre-fetches comprise at least one of: preventing wasted input/output operations created by attempting to pre-fetch data beyond an end of an extent, or failing to pre-fetch any data at a beginning of an extent.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the benefits of the pre-fetches comprise at least one of: preventing wasted input/output operations created by attempting to pre-fetch data beyond an end of an extent, or failing to pre-fetch any data at a beginning of an extent.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein the sequence of offsets comprise an extent map, with each offset defining a corresponding extent
6. The method of claim 3 wherein the sequence of offsets comprise an extent map, with each offset defining a corresponding extent.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the storage comprises part of a deduplication backup process executed by a data storage server running a Data Domain filesystem (DDFS), and wherein the client comprises a DDBoost client.
9. The method of claim 1 wherein the storage comprises part of a deduplication backup process executed by a data storage server running a Data Domain filesystem (DDFS), and wherein the client comprises a DDBoost client.
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 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 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 of this title, 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, 2, 4, 8-10, 16, 17, 19, 20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. US10078555 in view of Duggal et al. US2023/0109105 in view of Zhang et al. US2015/0293937 in view of Solan et al. US2021/0232594
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches: Obtaining, by a hardware-based prefetch processing component, extent information for delta changes between a first generation backup file and a second generation backup file; (Kumar see col. 6 lines 39-67 col. 7 lines 1-40 col. 12 lines 41-51 see col. 13 lines 61-67 col. 14 lines 1-36 col. 15 lines 42-54 see col. 28 lines 27-46 processor, identifying file extents as a contiguous area of storage with starting offset of length for changes based on incremental backups and full backups)
receiving, through a network interface in a filesystem server and from a client, an instruction to create a new synthesized file corresponding to the extent information; (Kumar see col. 6 lines 39-67 col. 7 lines 1-40 col. 8 lines 32-38 see col. 15 lines 15-33 identifying file extents as a contiguous area of storage with starting offset of length and copying all change blocks to create new synthetic file or stream based on file extents)
first creating, by the hardware-based prefetch processing component, upon receiving this instruction, a new synthesized file comprising extents of the extent information as contiguous data that can be read sequentially to leverage the benefits of the pre-fetches; (Kumar see col. 6 lines 39-67 col. 7 lines 1-40 col. 12 lines 41-51 col. 19 lines 14-28 col.22 lines 24-35 see col. 28 lines 27-46 processor, identifying file extents as a contiguous area of storage with starting offset of length, stream to contain merged data in sequential manner. Examiner notes the intended purpose recitation)
synthesized contents for the extent information (Kumar see col. 6 lines 39-67 col. 7 lines 1-40 col. 12 lines 41-51 col. 19 lines 14-28 col.22 lines 24-35 see col. 28 lines 27-46 processor, identifying file extents as a contiguous area of storage with starting offset of length, stream to contain merged data in sequential manner)
heading the synthesized file by a content handle; and (Kumar see co. 7 lines 15-24 metadata such as identification of files stored in backup)
storing, in physical storage media in the filesystem server, the synthesized file in a stateful context data structure (Kumar see col. 14 lines 55-64 col. 15 lines 15-33 col.17 lines 58-67 col. 18 lines 1-13, 43-52 66, 67, col. 19 lines 1-41 col. 22 lines 24-53 stream to be stored as backup in backup media such that backup media is a tape or disk, each payload block mapped in BAT being an array with entry for each block determining state and file offset)
Kumar does not distinctly disclose: accessing backup files represented by a Merkle tree comprising file data as variable sized segments grouped in hierarchal levels from a bottom level to a top level
second creating a new Merkle tree to host
maintaining a server-side state with the content handle for use when reading data of the file through a read operation
which can be looked up by the client through accessing the content handle from the stateful context
destroying, after the read operation is complete, the server-side state
Duggal teaches: accessing backup files represented by a Merkle tree comprising file data as variable sized segments grouped in hierarchal levels from a bottom level to a top level (Duggal see paragraph 0039 0043 0051 Merkle tree with levels and branches representing data file and data segments of variable size)
which can be looked up by the client through accessing the content handle from the stateful context (Duggal see paragraph 0020 0050 0055 0082 0097 0103 client accessing object including read uses hash of data where hash reads on content handle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of creating synthetic files as taught by Kumar to include hashing data taught by Duggal for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Kumar as modified does not distinctly disclose: second creating a new Merkle tree to host
maintaining a server-side state with the content handle for use when reading data of the file through a read operation
destroying, after the read operation is complete, the server-side state
Zhang teaches: maintaining a server-side state with the content handle for use when reading data of the file through a read operation (Zhang see paragraph 0043 0056 read requests using a hash for data on server)
destroying, after the read operation is complete, the server-side state (Zhang see paragraph 0026 0027 server to store data and delete data from server after a duration based on a number of read requests)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of creating synthetic files as taught by Kumar to include reading a hash as taught by Zhang for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Kumar does not distinctly disclose: second creating a new Merkle tree to host
Solan teaches: second creating a new Merkle tree to host (Solan see paragraphs 0027 0057 create new Merkle tree to host content)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of creating synthetic files as taught by Kumar to include creating a Merkle tree as taught by Solan for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches: wherein the content handle essentially comprises an inode-less file that does not impact a namespace of the filesystem. (Kumar see co. 7 lines 15-24 metadata such as identification of files stored in backup, no mention of inode or namespace reads on negative limitations)
Regarding claim 4, Kumar as modified further teaches: wherein the extent information comprises a sequence of offsets and lengths, with each offset and length pair defining a corresponding extent of data added to the first generation backup file to synthesize the second generation backup file. (Kumar see col. 9 lines 38-55 col. 14 lines 24-36 col. 19 lines 6-28 file extents stored in map with offset and length to create the next saveset by creating a synthetic full backup using a previous full backup and previous incremental backups)
Regarding claim 8, Kumar teaches: wherein the storage comprises part of a deduplication backup process executed by a data storage server running a Data Domain filesystem (DDFS), and wherein the client comprises a DDBoost client. (Kumar see col. 4 lines 57-67 col. 5 lines 1-14 deduplication storage system using DDBoost and a Data Domain file system)
Regarding claims 9, 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20, note the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. US10078555 in view of Duggal et al. US2023/0109105 in view of Zhang et al. US2015/0293937 in view of Solan et al. US2021/0232594 in view of Mowry US2002/0010838
Regarding claim 5, Kumar does not teach: wherein the pre-fetches move data from the extents into a read-ahead cache to be sent to an application of the client in response to a read request, and further wherein a prefetch generated by a pre-fetch request comprises a hint that a read input/output (I/O) operation is imminent for purposes of filling the read-ahead cache and preventing a need to issue a blocking I/O operation for the read request.
However, Mowry teaches: wherein the pre-fetches move data from the extents into a read-ahead cache to be sent to an application of the client in response to a read request, and further wherein a prefetch generated by a pre-fetch request comprises a hint that a read input/output (I/O) operation is imminent for purposes of filling the read-ahead cache and preventing a need to issue a blocking I/O operation for the read request. (Mowry see paragraph 0009 0016 prefetching initiates refill without blocking program allowing operation in parallel with prefetch I/o)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of creating synthetic files as taught by Kumar to include prefetching data as taught by Mowry for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 5
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12-15 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. US10078555 in view of Duggal et al. US2023/0109105 in view of Zhang et al. US2015/0293937 in view of Solan et al. US2021/0232594 in view of Mowry US2002/0010838 in view of IBM, 2/2/2024, “Readahead prefetching” https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/db2/11.1.0?topic=pool-readahead-prefetching
Regarding claim 6, Kumar does not teach: wherein the benefits of the pre-fetches comprise at least one of: preventing wasted input/output operations created by attempting to pre-fetch data beyond an end of an extent, or failing to pre-fetch any data at a beginning of an extent
However, IBM teaches: wherein the benefits of the pre-fetches comprise at least one of: preventing wasted input/output operations created by attempting to pre-fetch data beyond an end of an extent, or failing to pre-fetch any data at a beginning of an extent. (IBM, readahead prefetching)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of creating synthetic files as taught by Kumar to include readahead prefetching as taught by IBM for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 7, Kumar as modified further teaches: wherein the sequence of offsets comprise an extent map, with each offset defining a corresponding extent. (Kumar see col. 9 lines 38-55 file extents stored in map with offset and length)
Regarding claims 12-15, note the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: 101 rejection should be withdrawn in light of new amendments
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered persuasive and rejection is withdrawn
Applicant’s argument: 103 rejection should be withdrawn in light of new amendments
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered moot as newly amended claims are responded to in the above rejection
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153