-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-20Notice 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 .
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/21/2025.
Status of claims:
Claims 2, 7, 11 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10 and 19
Step 1:
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite the limitations:
“creating…; producing …” 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. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind and in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually with the aid of pen and paper identifies a location pertaining to a staging directory.
The mere nominal recitation of distributed storage clusters, within a container-scalable file structure do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the elements:
“receiving …; submitting…” represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
“computer processors”, “distributed storage clusters” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering, and submitting steps, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed Ina merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPO2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPO2d at 1092- 93).
The “computer processors”, “distributed storage clusters” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities,: Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., (Versata Dev. Group, Inc.v. SAP Am., Inc.- similarly, the current invention recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program readable instructions collectively stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program instructions executable by the computer processors to cause the computer processors to initiate operations.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea..
Claim 3 recites “wherein the selection criteria is met…”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly. The same rationale applies claim 12.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the selection criteria …”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly. The same rationale applies claim 13.
Claim 5 recites “dependent …”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly. The same rationale applies claim 14.
Claim 6 recites the additional element, which recites at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for writing the file block copy into the staging directory, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same rationale applies claim 15.
Claim 8 recites the additional element, which recites at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for synthesizing at least one container data file under the at least one container directory, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same rationale applies claim 17.
Claim 9 recites “creating…”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. And the limitations “receiving …; and submitting…” are recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements do not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same rationale applies claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the additional element. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlefield et al. (US 11/005,935), hereinafter “Littlefield”, in view of Mathew et al., (US 2021/0357293), hereinafter “Mathew”.
As per claim 1, Littlefield discloses a method for protecting files of distributed storage clusters, the method comprising:
- receiving a full backup request specifying a source directory comprising at least one file sought to be protected (col.9, lines 13-50, col.17, lines 4-30 and col.26, lines 43-63, a full backup request from a variety of sources in an organization produce data to be protected and managed);
- creating, within a container-scalable file structure, a backup directory to be associated with a full backup operation servicing the full backup request (col.2, lines 28-30; col.46, lines 20-50, col.60, lines 35-50, and col.62, lines 65-67, create one backup copy encompassing all the directories identified in the backup set, thereby creating very large backup copies which take too long to complete, specifies that the backup operation will be written to disk library) wherein the container- scalable file structure comprises a hierarchical structure, wherein the hierarchical structure further comprises a plurality of levels, wherein each level of the plurality of levels includes a plurality of backup directories and a metadata database (par. [0292], a backup copy according to the file server's own proprietary arrangement of data, which includes data arrangement and sequencing, formatting, headers, hierarchical structure and information, file attributes, block sizing, etc.; and par. [0309], The first structure information may indicate one or more of: (i) the order in which file data corresponding to a plurality of files is arranged in the first full backup copy (e.g., depth-first order), (ii) whether or not the first full backup copy includes a bit flag for each inode in the plurality of inodes, (iii) whether a list of directories is provided in the first full backup copy and whether the list of directories precedes the file data corresponding to the plurality of files in the directories in the first full backup copy);
- producing a file-container map reflecting an assignment of the at least one file to at least one container directory under the backup directory (col.28, line 55-col.29, line 14, create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations where the data resides as it existed at the particular point in time), wherein producing the file- container map comprises: for each file of the at least one file sought to be protected (col.9, lines 13-50, col.17, lines 4-30 and col.26, lines 43-63, a full backup request from a variety of sources in an organization produce data to be protected and managed):
obtaining a file size of the file (col.2, line 55-col.3, line 15, size of each individual backup copy);
selecting a container directory based on selection criteria at least dependent on the file size (col.28, line 55-67, create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations);
assigning the file to the container directory (col.28, line 55-67, create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations);
generating, in the file-container map and for the file, a map entry comprising a file identifier (ID) associated with the file and a backup destination path referencing a structure location, within the container-scalable file structure, whereat a staging directory resides under the container directory (col.28, line 55-67, create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations);
synthesizing at least one container data file under at least one container directory, respectively, the synthesizing of the at least one container data file, comprising: for each container directory of the at least one container directory: accessing a staging directory under the container directory (col.15, lines 12-24, data file);
assembling a set of files from file blocks stored in the staging directory (col.2,
lines 55-67, all directories are individually tracked in the proprietary index so that they can be individually restored without regard to other directories backed up in the same backup copy); and
synthesizing, for the container directory and to reside there-under, a
container data file using data for the set of files (col.27, lines 15-34, tracks changes to individual files and includes copies of files in the backup copy and for block-level backups, files are broken into constituent blocks, and changes are tracked at the block level).
However, Littlefield does not explicitly disclose the claimed “submitting, to a distributed workload framework and to perform the full backup operation, a full copy-write request specifying the source directory and the file-container map”.
On the other hand, Mathew discloses submitting, to a distributed workload framework and to perform the full backup operation, a full copy-write request specifying the source directory and the file-container map (par. [0030] and [0055], submitting the processing service requests to the clustered storage system which is receiving file operation requests delegated from the cluster workload balancer, processing the file operation requests (full copy-write requests), and returning file operation responses based on results obtained from processing the file operation requests).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Littlefield to submit a full copy-write request specifying the source directory, in order to minimize the amount of storage space required to store the backup data in the storage node;
As per claim 3, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses wherein the selection criteria is met, and wherein the container directory is an existing container directory under the backup directory (col.34, lines 54-65, determine whether a metric or other indication satisfies particular storage criteria sufficient to perform an action).
As per claim 4, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses wherein the selection criteria is not met, and wherein the container directory is a new container directory under the backup directory (col.45, line 42-col.46, lines 51).
As per claim 5, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses the selection criteria is further dependent on a container directory size of the container directory, a maximum container directory size, a container directory files cardinality for the container directory, and a maximum container directory files cardinality (col.61, lines 55-60, directory size).
As to claim 6, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses extracting, from the file-container map, the backup destination path for the file (col.58, lines 33-48, file extracted from an individual backup copy); “identifying at least one file block of the file” (col.27, lines 17-36, tracks changes to individual files and includes copies of files in the backup copy and for block-level backups, files are broken into constituent blocks, and changes are tracked at the block level); copying, from the worker cluster device, the file block to obtain a file block copy (col.14, lines 58-67, copying of data from primary storage subsystem to secondary storage subsystem) ; traversing, using the backup destination path, the container-scalable file structure to access the staging directory (col.2, lines 19-22, ignore data files not in a directory, the illustrative embodiments back up data files found at the root level).
Mathew discloses identifying, of a distributed storage cluster, a worker cluster device storing the file block (par. [0018] and [0031], clustered storage system may use identifying information to intelligently distribute the backup files to particular storage nodes within a cluster); and writing the file block copy into the staging directory (par. [0053], the data source identifier may be provided as an input to an operation that writes (or creates) a backup file to the clustered storage system).
As per claim 8, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses wherein the container data file is a flat file (col.21, lines 18-35 and col.46, lines 20-50, a flat file).
As per claim 9, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses receiving an incremental backup request specifying the source directory comprising at least one second file sought to be protected (col.9, lines 13-50, col.17, lines 4-30 and col.26, lines 43-63, a full backup request from a variety of sources in an organization produce data to be protected and managed);
- creating, within the container-scalable file structure, a second backup directory to be associated with an incremental backup operation servicing the incremental backup request (col.2, lines 28-30; col.46, lines 20-50, col.60, lines 35-50, and col.62, lines 65-67, create one backup copy encompassing all the directories identified in the backup set, thereby creating very large backup copies which take too long to complete, specifies that the backup operation will be written to disk library); and producing a second file-container map reflecting a second assignment of the at least one second file to at least one second container directory under the second backup directory (col.28, line 55-col.29, line 14, create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations where the data resides as it existed at the particular point in time).
However, Littlefield does not explicitly disclose the claimed “submitting, to the distributed workload framework and to perform the incremental backup operation, an incremental copy-write request specifying the source directory and the second file-container map”.
On the other hand, Mathew discloses submitting, to the distributed workload framework and to perform the incremental backup operation, an incremental copy-write request specifying the source directory and the second file-container map (par. [0030] and [0055], submitting the processing service requests to the clustered storage system which is receiving file operation requests delegated from the cluster workload balancer, processing the file operation requests (full copy-write requests), and returning file operation responses based on results obtained from processing the file operation requests).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Littlefield to submit a full copy-write request specifying the source directory, in order to minimize the amount of storage space required to store the backup data in the storage node.
As per claim 20, the combination of Littlefield and Mathew discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Littlefield discloses wherein the plurality of computer processors further comprises a second computer processor operatively connected to the first computer processor, and wherein the distributed workload framework operates at least using the first and second computer processors (col.52, lines 8-17, storage manager comprises a computing device comprising one or more hardware processors and computer memory for executing computer program instructions, and further comprises and executes specialized software for managing system, wherein the storage manager comprises the specialized software for managing system and is said to execute on a computing device comprising one or more hardware processors and computer memory and wherein storage manager is communicatively coupled to backup proxy).
As per claims 10, 12-15, and 17-18, are non-transitory computer readable medium claims, which are corresponding to the method of claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9. Therefore, claims 10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 above.
As per claim 19, is system claim, which is corresponding to the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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 Loan T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. 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, 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.
3/14/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights