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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on March 11, 2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 22, it is suggested to have “a memory to store instructions, the instructions is executed by processor to ”.
Because “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Gordon et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0080268) in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0325620).
Referring to claim 1, Gordon et al. teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, from a client and by a storage array, a request (a storage array 310 for storing and distributing data objects of media files requested by end user devices through end user interface 360, see Gordon et al., Para. 50) to for one or more files of a file system in the storage array as one or more objects in object storage (a file is uploaded, transcoded, and stored in media file origin 455, the location and other metadata concerning the transcoded media files need to be created or updated in the data object origin 415 to ensure an end user device that accesses the object in the data object origin 415 has the correct information regarding the related media file, see Gordon et al., Para. 55) of the storage array (uploaded media files from a media provider 130 through a content provider interface 370. The media files may be stored on the storage array 310, see Gordon et al., Para. 50); and
storing the one or objects in the object storage (uploaded media files from a media provider 130 through a content provider interface 370. The media files may be stored on the storage array 310, see Gordon et al., Para. 50).
Gordon et al. does not explicitly teach
transfer data stored in one or more files of a file system;
avoiding traversal of a network connection to the client.
However, Samson et al. teaches
transfer data stored in one or more files of a file system (A single request is made by user 2452 for the transfer, after which the files are requested on the user's behalf from the originating service 2454, and the files sent on the user's behalf to the destination service 2456, see Samson et al., Para. 188);
while 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 Gordon et al., to have transfer data stored in one or more files of a file system; while 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, Gordon et al. teaches a system comprising:
a memory (memory, see Gordon et al., Para. 08); and
a processing device (processor, see Gordon et al., Para. 08), operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured 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, Gordon et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (memory, see Gordon et al., Para. 08) 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 Gordon et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0080268) 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 Bondurant et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,754,821).
As to claim 2, Gordon 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, Bondurant et al. teaches
reading (the blocks that have been copied from a first storage array are written into the second storage array, see Bondurant et al., Col. 6, lines 42-44), by the storage array, the one or more files from the file system using a file system protocol (a second storage array and wherein the second storage array provides …, file storage over a second protocol, see Bondurant et al., Col. 10, lines 29-32); and
writing the one or more objects to the object storage of the storage array using an object storage protocol (a second storage array and wherein the second storage array provides block storage over … object storage over a third protocol, see Bondurant et al., Col. 10, lines 29-32).
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 Gordon 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 Bondurant et al., to improve the sharing and accessibility of information and the reliability those processes (Bondurant et al., Col. 1, lines 44-45).
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 Gordon et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0080268) 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, Gordon 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 Gordon 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, Gordon et al. 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 Gordon et al., 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, Gordon et al. teaches deleting the one or more files from the file system (deletes the transcoded media files from the transcoding services 460, see Gordon et al., Para. 56). As to claim 6, Gordon et al. 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 in the object storage of the storage array.
However, Faibish et al. teaches the one or more files are included in a group of logically associated volumes (The burst buffer appliance 104 may receive data from a variety of sources other than the compute nodes 106, although such other sources are not explicitly shown in the figure. For example, the burst buffer appliance may receive data files comprising sensor data received from sensor networks, see Faibish et al., Col. 6, lines 55-60) and wherein the request comprises a request to store the group of logically associated volumes (The data files can be stored either in the parallel file system 102 or in the burst buffer appliance 104, see Faibish et al., Col. 9, lines 22-24, wherein the data files are data in volumes) as one or more objects in the object storage of the storage array (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 Gordon et al., 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 in the object storage of the storage array, 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).
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.
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 Gordon et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0080268) 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, Gordon et al. as modified teaches storage array (a storage array 310 for storing and distributing data objects of media files, see Gordon et al., Para. 50), one or more objects in the object storage of the storage array (the object in the data object origin, see Gordon et al., Para. 55), replication of the one or more objects to another object storage location (duplicating the data across Systems, see Samson et al., Para. 15).
Gordon 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 Gordon 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, Gordon 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, Gordon 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 Gordon et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0080268) 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, Gordon 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 Gordon 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 3/11/2026 with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 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 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 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