Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 18/647,904, filed on 6/4/2010 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 17/884,443 filed on 08/09/2022 is now US PAT 12001295 17/884,443 is a CON of 16/685,326 filed on 11/15/2019 is now US PAT 11449394 16/685,326 has PRO 62/811,424 filed on 02/27/2019
16/685,326 is a CIP of 15/684,410 filed on 08/23/2017 is now US PAT 10534673
15/684,410 is a CON of 14/675,524 filed on 03/31/2015 ABN
14/675,524 is a CON of 13/958,353 filed on 08/02/2013 is now US PAT 9026497
13/958,353 is a CON of 12/982,165 filed on 12/30/2010 is now US PAT 8504526
12/982,165 has PRO 61/351,790 filed on 06/04/2010
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are cancelled, new claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 9/29/2025
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/26/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority provisional
Application # 62/811,424 filed on 02/27/2019, 61/351,790 filed on 06/04/2010 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e).
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s terminal disclaimer approved on 9/29/2025
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 and remarks page 1-3 filed on 9/29/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new claims 21-40 (filed on 9/29/2025), and new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 21,31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system, method of claim 21-30, 31-40 respectively directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 21
“Claim 21,31. (New) A backup system comprising:
one or more storage devices;
a host computing device comprising one or more hardware processors and memory, the host computing device executing a media agent configured to:
generate backup data from a data source;
generate transaction logs corresponding to the backup data; obtain rules that associate different types of data sources with respective indexing modules;
apply the rules to determine a target indexing module for the transaction logs based on a type of the data source; and
transmit the transaction logs to the target indexing module;
an indexing host computing device comprising one or more hardware processors and memory, the indexing host computing device executing a plurality of indexing modules, wherein the indexing modules are associated with different database management systems and each indexing module is configured to process transaction logs into an index; and
wherein the backup system is further configured to, responsive to receiving a restoration request identifying a file or object of the data source, access the index corresponding to the data source and restore the file or object from the backup data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example in the context of this claim “backup”, “transaction log”,”apply rules”, “transmit transaction logs”, “restoration”, encompasses the user thinking of backup and restoration of data
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para: 0130-0138,0140-0141 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 0130-0138,0140-0141 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 22,32, further elaborates “wherein applying the rules comprises selecting a first indexing module when the data source is a file system, selecting a second indexing module when the data source is metadata-rich application data, and selecting a third indexing module when the data source is a structured database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 23,33, further elaborates, “wherein at least two indexing modules process the same transaction logs to generate indexes of different types corresponding to different database management systems”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 24,34, further elaborates “logic to initiate backup of an index generated by an indexing module according to criteria comprising one or more of: a time of day, a number of unprocessed transaction logs, or a type of completed storage operation”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 25,35, further elaborates “wherein the media agent is configured to generate backup data and the indexing modules are configured to process transaction logs asynchronously with respect to one another”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 26,36, further elaborates wherein each host computing device is further configured to calculate system usage information comprising storage capacity, processor load, and forecasted load trends”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 27,37, further elaborates “a classification engine configured to determine that migration criteria are satisfied when a host computing device is classified as one of: warning or overloaded based on forecasted load trend”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 28,38, further elaborates “wherein the backup system is further configured to suspend an active backup operation when migration criteria are satisfied, transfer an index from a first host computing device to a second host computing device, and resume the backup operation on the second host computing device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 29,39, further elaborates “wherein the rules stored in the management database are updated to identify the second host computing device as the indexing destination following a migration”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 30,40, further elaborates “logic to raise an alarm when no suitable host computing device is available to satisfy migration criteria”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius et al., (hereafter Ignatius), US Pub. No. 2005/0257062 in view of Randal et al., (hereafter Randal), US Pub. No. 2005/0223043 published Oct, 2005
As to claim 21,31. (New) A backup system comprising: (Ignatius: fig 1, 95A – Ignatius teaches backup and index system);
PNG
media_image1.png
453
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“one or more storage devices” (Ignatius: fig 1, 0027-0028, element 115A – Ignatius teaches one or more storage devices);
PNG
media_image2.png
189
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“a host computing device comprising one or more hardware processors and memory, the host computing device executing a media agent configured to” (Ignatius: fig 1A, 0029, 0048 – Ignatius teaches agents of data pipe to connect across multiple computer system particularly network client element 8 including storage 90A is a memory device);
“generate backup data from a data source” (Ignatius: fig 1A, 0032 – Ignatius teaches each media agent element 105A maintains an index cache element 110A and the storage operations generate index data for example index data location of the stored data on a particular media such as file names, sizes, creation dates, formats and like
“generate,corresponding to the backup data” (Ignatius: fig 1B, 0052 – Ignatius teaches data pipe line having modules and devices are used to backup data)
PNG
media_image3.png
220
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
“obtain rules that associate different types of data sources with respective indexing modules” (Ignatius: 0034-0035, fig 1A – Ignatius teaches storage manager index data and the relationship between system and the management tasks particularly storage operations performed with respect to storage policy and the storage criteria)
“apply the rules to determine a target indexing module for, based on a type of the data source” (Ignatius: 0035-0036 – Ignatius teaches storage policy applied to the index caches element 107A and 110 A in performing storage operations of particular client element 8; and
PNG
media_image1.png
453
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“transmit to the target indexing module” (Ignatius: 0043, 0051-0052, fig 1A-B , fig 2B – Ignatius teaches transmitting the index data);
“an indexing host computing device comprising one or more hardware processors and memory, (Ignatius: fig 1A-B, 0028-0029) the indexing host computing device executing a plurality of indexing modules, wherein the indexing modules are associated with different database management systems and each indexing module is configured to process an index” (Ignatius: 0031-0033 – Ignatius teaches index data and/or index information stored and used to in the media agent index element 110A and available to the system for use in the various database storage operations); and
“wherein the backup system is further configured to, responsive to receiving a restoration request identifying a file or object of the data source, access the index corresponding to the data source and restore the file or object from the backup data” (Ignatius: 0033,0035,0039 – Ignatius teaches secondary volume data, primary copies, secondary copies, snapshot copies along with backup copies maintained in the database storage , further in the event of data restoration operation, index information storage with the stored data used to rebuild index as detailed in fig 1A-B, fig 2B. It is also noted that Ignatius specifically teaches storage policy associated with storage manager index used in restore operations, also “restore process element 70 detailed in fig 2B)
It is however, noted that Ignatius does not teach “transmit the transaction logs to the target indexing module”. On the other hand, Randal disclosed “transmit the transaction logs to the target indexing module” (Randal: Abstract,0024,0043-0044 – Randal teaches database backup operations particularly database backup and transaction log contains the required information to verify integrity based on the transaction log data, while integrity of storage structure linked to index tree, for example transaction log records are directly related to the index tree (B-tree) thereby checks the integrity of the database backup)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention database backup and transaction log contains required data to perform consistency check on database backup of Randal et al., into generating backup index in storage operations supported with storage policy of Ignatius et al., because both Ignatius, Randal teaches storage database structure supporting index data (Ignatius: fig 1A-B,0033-0034; Randal: 0027, 0043, fig 2-3). Because both Ignatius, Randal teaches backup data operations, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to maintain transaction log associated with the storage operations particularly backup index data operation, while verify the integrity of the database backup to improve reliability of the database recovery (Randal : Abstract), further defining recovery policy by validating the integrity of the full backup of the database (Randal: 0013), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
As to claim 22,32. (New) , the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “wherein applying the rules comprises selecting a first indexing module when the data source is a file system, (Ignatius: 0030-0032) selecting a second indexing module when the data source is metadata-rich application data, (Ignatius: 0034-0035)and selecting a third indexing module when the data source is a structured database (Ignatius: fig 1A-B).
As to claim 23,33. (New) , the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed,” wherein at least two indexing modules process the same to generate indexes of different types corresponding to different database management systems” (Ignatius: fig 1A-B, 2B, 0031-0033,0046). On the other hand, Randal disclosed “transaction logs” (Randal: Abstract, 0024,0029)
As to claim 24,34, (New) , the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “logic to initiate backup of an index generated by an indexing module according to criteria comprising one or more of: a time of day, a number of unprocessed transaction logs, or a type of completed storage operation” (Ignatius: fig 1A-B, 0033-0035, 0067-0068 – Ignatius teaches pipeline process of storage operations identifying process Id, and respective time stamp, name of the storage and like both remote and local machines).
As to claim 25,35. (New) , the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “wherein the media agent is configured to generate backup data and the indexing modules are configured to process asynchronously with respect to one another” (Ignatius: fig 1A-B, 0028,0031-0033). On the other hand, Randal disclosed “transaction logs” (Randal: Abstract, 0024,0029)
As to claim 26,36. (New) , the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “wherein each host computing device is further configured to calculate system usage information comprising storage capacity, processor load, and forecasted load trend” (Randal: 0030,0039, fig 4).
As to claim 27,37. (New) the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “a classification engine configured to determine that migration criteria are satisfied when a host computing device is classified as one of: warning or overloaded based on forecasted load trend” (Ignatius: 0027, 0037,0183-0184).
As to claim 28,38. (New) the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “wherein the backup system is further configured to suspend an active backup operation when migration criteria are satisfied, transfer an index from a first host computing device to a second host computing device, and resume the backup operation on the second host computing device” (Ignatius: 0036-0036, 0052).
As to claim 29,39. (New) the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “wherein the rules stored in the management database are updated to identify the second host computing device as the indexing destination following a migration” (Ignatius: 0036-0036, 0040, 0052).
As to claim 30,40. (New) the combination of Ignatius , Randal disclosed “logic to raise an alarm when no suitable host computing device is available to satisfy migration criteria” (Ignatius: 0036-0036, 0065-0066)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2005/0257062
b. US Pub. No. 2005/0223043
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154