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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, 12 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are now pending for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0004721) in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620).
Referring to claim 1, Iyer et al. teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, from a client and by a storage array (backing up file systems as respective LUNs in a storage array via filesystem-to-LUN replication job(s) using block-level data transfers, see Iyer et al., Para. 21), a request to transfer data stored in one or more files of a file system in the storage array as one or more objects in object storage (The data agent 142 may receive control information from the storage manager 140, such as commands to transfer copies of data objects, metadata, and other payload data to the media agents 144, see Iyer et al., Para. 123, a media agent 144 may be implemented as a software module that manages, coordinates, and facilitates the transmission of data, as directed by the storage manager 140, between a client computing device 102 and one or more secondary storage devices 108, see Iyer et al., Para. 130) of the storage array (backing up file systems as respective LUNs in a storage array via filesystem-to-LUN replication job(s) using block-level data transfers, see Iyer et al., Para. 21), the one or more objects comprising the data stored in the one or more files (a "data object" can refer to both (1) any file that is currently addressable by a file system or that was previously addressable by the file system (e.g., an archive file) and (2) a subset of such a file (e.g., a data block), see Iyer et al., Para. 67); and
storing the one or objects in the object storage (the media agent 144 can act as a local cache of copied data and/or metadata that it has stored to the secondary storage device(s) 108, see Iyer et al., Para. 129, a media agent 144 may be implemented as a software module that manages, coordinates, and facilitates the transmission of data, as directed by the storage manager 140, between a client computing device 102 and one or more secondary storage devices 108, see Iyer et al., Para. 130).
Iyer et al. does not explicitly teach
avoiding traversal of a network connection to the client.
However, Samson et al. teaches
avoiding traversal of a network connection to the client (None of the data need traverse the user's own device or network for the transfer to occur, see Samson et al., Para. 189).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al., to have avoiding traversal of a network connection to the client, as taught by Samson et al., to increase the efficiency of task management in non-Windows as well as Windows environments in the data center, in small devices, and the cloud (Samson et al., Para. 18).
Referring to claim 11, Iyer et al. teaches a system comprising:
a memory (memory, see Iyer et al., Para. 379) storing instructions; and
a processing device (processor, see Iyer et al., Para. 378), operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to execute the instructions to, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Referring to claim 20, Iyer et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (memory, see Iyer et al., Para. 379) storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to , which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0004721) in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 20 above, and in further view of Wu (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0241726).
As to claim 2, Iyer et al. as modified does not explicitly teach
reading, by the storage array, the one or more files from the file system using a file system protocol; and
writing the one or more objects to the object storage of the storage array using an object storage protocol.
However, Wu teaches
reading, by the storage array, the one or more files from the file system using a file system protocol (These file protocol reads may be performed using any file system protocol, see Wu, Para. 50); and
writing the one or more objects to the object storage of the storage array using an object storage protocol (The branch location storage client uses storage block-based protocols to specify reads, writes, modifications, and/or deletions of storage blocks, see Wu, Para. 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al. as modified, to have reading, by the storage array, the one or more files from the file system using a file system protocol; and writing the one or more objects to the object storage of the storage array using an object storage protocol, as taught by Wu, to decreases costs and improves management Efficiency (Wu., Para. 8).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0004721) in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 20 above, and in further view of Faibish et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,558,208).
As to claim 3, Iyer et al. as modified does not explicitly teach a request to copy the one or more files to the object storage as the one or more objects,
However, Faibish et al. teaches a request to copy the one or more files to the object storage as the one or more objects (writing of corresponding data files as objects to particular ones of the storage tiers, see Faibish et al., Col. 9, lines 19-20. In addition to the teaching for request in claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al. as modified, to have a request to copy the one or more files to the object storage as the one or more objects, as taught by Faibish et al., to have an ability to achieve particular levels of performance at lower cost would be advantageous (Faibish et al., Col. 1, lines 50-51).
As to claim 4, Iyer et al. as modified does not explicitly teach a request to move the one or more files to the object storage as the one or more objects.
However, Faibish et al. teaches a request to move (data object movement determinations can be made at least in part utilizing a job scheduler of the system 100 responsive to IO requests received in the job scheduler from one or more applications running on the compute nodes 106, see Faibish et al., Col. 5, lines 30-34) the one or more files to the object storage as the one or more objects (writing of corresponding data files as objects to particular ones of the storage tiers, see Faibish et al., Col. 9, lines 19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al. as modified, to have a request to move the one or more files to the object storage as the one or more objects, as taught by Faibish et al., to have an ability to achieve particular levels of performance at lower cost would be advantageous (Faibish et al., Col. 1, lines 50-51).
As to claim 5, Iyer et al. teaches deleting the one or more files from the file system (an instance of a data object in primary data 112 may eventually be deleted from the primary storage device 104 and the file system, see Iyer et al., Para. 81).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0004721) in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 20 above, and in further view of Abercrombie et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0344216).
As to claim 6, Iyer et al. teaches as one or more objects in the object storage of the storage array (backing up file systems as respective LUNs in a storage array via filesystem-to-LUN replication job(s) using block-level data transfers, see Iyer et al., Para. 21).
Iyer et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the one or more files are included in a group of logically associated volumes and wherein the request comprises a request to store the group of logically associated volumes as one or more objects.
However, Abercrombie et al. teaches the one or more files are included in a group of logically associated volumes and wherein the request comprises a request to store the group of logically associated volumes as one or more objects (the delta of A3 and Bl (not shown) is requested by the Object Manager to be copied from storage pool 2010 to storage pool 2030, to be applied to object A3, see Abercrombie et al., Para. 298).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al. as modified, to have the one or more files are included in a group of logically associated volumes and wherein the request comprises a request to store the group of logically associated volumes as one or more objects, as taught by Abercrombie et al., to improve the movement of the data between storage pools (Abercrombie et al., Para. 70).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 6 rejection.
Claims 7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0004721) in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 20 above, and in further view of Campanotti et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0144302).
As to claim 7, Iyer et al. as modified teaches storage array (backing up file systems as respective LUNs in a storage array via filesystem-to-LUN replication job(s) using block-level data transfers, see Iyer et al., Para. 21), one or more objects in the object storage of the storage array (commands to transfer copies of data objects, metadata, and other payload data to the media agents 144, see Iyer et al., Para. 123), replication of the one or more objects to another object storage location (performing data storage operations such as the copying, archiving, migrating, and/or replicating of primary data 112 stored in the primary storage device(s) 104, see Iyer et al., Para. 123).
Iyer et al. as modified does not explicitly teach initiating, and in response to completing storage of the one or more objects, replication of the one or more objects to another object storage location.
However, Campanotti et al. teaches initiating, and in response to completing storage of the one or more objects, replication of the one or more objects (the publishing portal 930 detects 915 completed content… create duplicate copies on multiple data tapes or multiple storage devices 122… create duplicate copies on multiple data tapes or multiple storage devices 122, see Campanotti et al., Para. 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al. as modified, to have initiating, and in response to completing storage of the one or more objects, replication of the one or more objects, as taught by Campanotti et al., to have more efficient content distribution mechanisms (Campanotti et al., Para. 7).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection.
As to claim 18, Iyer et al. as modified teach the other object storage location comprises another local object storage location (a storage device location, see Campanotti et al., Para. 9). As to claim 19, Iyer et al. as modified teach the other object storage location comprises a remotely disposed object storage location (Additionally, the digital media may also be transferred through a cloud from the encoder 110 to the storage facility 120, see Campanotti et al., Para. 34).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0004721 in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 20 above, and in further view of Kapadia et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0294051).
As to claim 8, Iyer et al. as modified does not explicitly teach assigning permissions to access the one or more objects.
However, Kapadia et al. teaches assigning permissions to access the one or more objects
(an object may have an associated ACL which controls which people have which permissions… the person having the right to change the rights in an object may assign another user to additionally or alternatively have the right to change the rights in the object, see Kapadia et al., Para. 152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iyer et al. as modified, to have assigning permissions to access the one or more objects, as taught by Kapadia et al., reduce administration costs (Kapadia et al., (Para. 8).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/14/2026 with respect to claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16 and 20 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights