DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment, filed on September 19, 2025.
3. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are not persuasive at least for the following reason: Applicant argues in substance that, “However, Mutalik does not disclose the following limitation of Claim 1 "comprising a set of containers associated with adjacent time windows, a container containing a sequence of successive modifications of the graph over a time window with which it is associated," as Mutalik does not disclose nor suggest the notion of "time windows" as accepted by the Office. Moreover, contrary to the interpretation by the Office, Mutalik does also not disclose the following limitation of Claim 1 "wherein at least some of the containers, called reference containers, also contain a snapshot of the graph within the time window associated with the reference container, called reference snapshot". Indeed, if Mutalik discloses using "snapshot object", this is never in combination with the embodiment using container. On the contrary, the embodiments of Mutalik using CAS and snapshot objects are not compatible. Thus, at no point Mutalik describes "snapshot of a graph within a time window". Finally, paragraph 121 cited by the Office against this feature is not relevant as this paragraph only states that references are made to snapshot object or to internal data structure but does not disclose "reference snapshot". In addition, the following feature of Claim 1: "at least some other containers, called delta containers, contain a difference image between two snapshots of the graph, respectively associated with the start and with the end of the time window associated with the delta container" is also not disclosed by Mutalik, for the same reasons. Indeed, paragraph 216 of Mutalik discloses "difference between two snapshots" but not in a container and, as already discussed, snapshot objects are not related to graph. Florissi does not remedy these defects.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, Mutalik discloses a temporal relationship graph stored objects, including multiple containers and its functionalities as claimed. See cited figure 13, which includes initial state, graphed, and state after correction or as modified according to rules and policies, the reference being the initial state of the source data, as understood for the containers having different snapshots of the graphs, again Figure 13 complies with at least two different states or snapshots.
Their list of operations and its time series form start to finish (Par [0122]), complying with a graph sequence of successive modifications.
Also as cited in paragraphs [0137-0138] and [0216], it has a data virtualization system, access any delta or difference in relation to a virtual copy, and transfers delta or difference accordingly, see figures 10 and 18-B-19B.
The Examiner suggest to further clarify if different from interpretation the “delta container” and the “snapshot” in order to further clarify and differentiate from the prior art of record. The Examiner also invites the applicant to request an interview in order to discuss the mentioned issue, potential distinguishable subject matter, and any other potential uses in order to advance prosecution prior to issuing any additional action. In order to enhance compact prosecution and clarity of record.
For the above reasons, the Examiner believes that the rejections of the last Office action were proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUTALIK et al (US 2016/0077926), in view of Florissi et al (US 10,791,063), hereinafter MUTALIK and "Florissi".
As per Claim 1, MUTALIK discloses:
A system for storing a graph-oriented time database, comprising a set of containers associated with adjacent time windows, (Par [0018], “…the first schedule defining a first set of times associated with replicating the first deduplicated data object from the source copy data management system to the first intermediary copy data management system”, par [0034], “FIG. 13 shows the data model and operations for the temporal relationship graph stored for objects within the CAS.” And Figures 6, including the multiple containers and its functionalities 9-10 and 12-13) a container containing a sequence of successive modifications of the graph over a time window with which it is associated, (Par [0122], “Optimal backup and restore consult the list of operations from a desired starting point to an end point time ordered list of operations and their corresponding data structures (bitmaps) are constructed such that a continuous time series from start to finish is realized: there is no gap between start times of the operations in the series.” And see par [0264], “the CAS are arranged in graphs with temporal relationships using the data structure depicted in FIG. 13. It is likely that objects that share an edge in these graphs differ in only a small subset of their data, and it is also rare that any new data chunk that appears when an object is created from a predecessor should appear again between any two other objects. Thus, the mark phase of garbage collection processes each connected component of the temporal graph.”) characterized in that wherein at least some of the containers, called reference containers, (Par [0121], “a reference to the snapshot object, and a reference to the internal data structure (e.g. bitmaps or extent lists), so that it can be obtained from the underlying system. Also maintained is a reference to the result of copying the state of the data object at any given point in time into another pool—as an example, copying the state of a data object into a capacity-optimized pool 407 using content addressing results in an object handle…”) also contain a snapshot of said the graph within the time window associated with said the reference container, called reference snapshot, (Par [0121], “That object handle corresponds to a given snapshot and is stored with the snapshot operation in the time line. This correlation is used to identify suitable starting points.” And par [0134], “…the state of the data to a specific point so that the image data is coherent, and so that the snapshot may later be used to restore the state of the application at the time of the snapshot...” And see Figures 6-8 and 41, see also par [0264], “CAS are arranged in graphs with temporal relationships…”). and in that at least some other containers, called delta containers, contain a difference image between two snapshots of said the graph, (Par [0137], “Any delta or difference can be expressed in relation to a virtual copy instead of in relation to a baseline” and Par [0138], “…even though a baseline copy is needed when the Data Virtualization System is first initialized. This is because each virtual copy provides access to a complete copy. Any delta or difference can be expressed in relation to a virtual copy instead of in relation to a baseline. This has the positive side effect of virtually eliminating the common step of walking through a series of change lists…” par [0216], “…The format used for data transfer is thus able to transfer only a delta or difference between two snapshots using bitmaps or extents.” and see figures 10 and 18B-19B)
respectively associated with the start and with the end of the time window associated with said the delta container. (Par [0137], “…Any delta or difference can be expressed in relation to a virtual copy instead of in relation to a baseline.” Par [0239], temporal tree management, and par [0264], “…The algorithm employed for marking referenced data uses the fact that objects in the CAS are arranged in graphs with temporal relationships using the data structure depicted…” See FIG. 13-14 and Figures 22 and 44; Par [0285], “For example, if data object O has been copied at time T3 from a server in Boston to a remote server in Seattle, Protection Catalog Store 908 will store that object O at time T3 exists both in Boston and Seattle. At time T5, during a subsequent copy from Boston to Seattle, the temporal data structure will be consulted to determine the previous state of object O in Seattle that should be used for differencing on the source server in Boston. The Boston server will then take the difference of T5 and T3, and send that difference to the Seattle server.”).
MUTALIK discloses different times starting time, ending time, could represent a “time window” however not specifically discloses the “time window”
Florissi specifically discloses the mentioned “time window” as follows: (Col. 64, lines 17-29, “…analytics is performed substantially continuously over multiple time windows collectively encompassing a long period of time. Given the nature of IoT and the fact that many data sources change the data zones that they connect to within the duration of these time intervals, the system 3400 is configured to automatically adapt to changes in data source locations and associated addresses. The system 3400 provides scalability in that the data does not need to be fully aggregated in a single location, and so there are no limits to the size of the data that can be analyzed in a distributed and parallel manner, and in near real-time.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Florissi specifically a time window into the method of MUTALIK to take advantage on applying copy or snapshot during certain period of time. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement calculating an estimated time to do copies while updates are performed in order to have the recent snapshot.
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and MUTALIK further discloses: characterized in that said wherein the difference image is stored in the form of a minimal number of modifications of the graph between said the two snapshots.
(Par [0137], “Any delta or difference can be expressed in relation to a virtual copy instead of in relation to a baseline” and Par [0138], “…even though a baseline copy is needed when the Data Virtualization System is first initialized. This is because each virtual copy provides access to a complete copy. Any delta or difference can be expressed in relation to a virtual copy instead of in relation to a baseline. This has the positive side effect of virtually eliminating the common step of walking through a series of change lists…” par [0216], “…The format used for data transfer is thus able to transfer only a delta or difference between two snapshots using bitmaps or extents.” and see figures 10 and 18B-19B).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and MUTALIK further discloses: characterized in that said wherein the time windows may be of distinct durations but contain a same number N of successive updates of the graph. (Par [0078], “… ((a) make a copy of application data (the frequency of this action is commonly termed the Recovery Point Objective (RPO)), (b) store the copy of data in an exclusive storage repository, typically in a proprietary format, and (c) retain the copy for certain duration, measured as Retention Time. A primary difference in each of the point solutions is in the frequency of the RPO, the Retention Time, and the characteristics of the individual storage repositories used, including capacity, cost and geographic location.”).
MUTALIK discloses different times starting time, ending time, could represent a “time window” however not specifically discloses the “time window” and M and N.
Florissi specifically discloses the mentioned “time window” as follows: (Col. 64, lines 17-29, “…analytics is performed substantially continuously over multiple time windows collectively encompassing a long period of time. Given the nature of IoT and the fact that many data sources change the data zones that they connect to within the duration of these time intervals, the system 3400 is configured to automatically adapt to changes in data source locations and associated addresses. The system 3400 provides scalability in that the data does not need to be fully aggregated in a single location, and so there are no limits to the size of the data that can be analyzed in a distributed and parallel manner, and in near real-time.” Col. 6, lines 30-43, “The variables N, M and K denote arbitrary values, as embodiments of the invention can be configured using any desired number of WWH nodes 102, YARN clusters 104 and clients…”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and MUTALIK further discloses: characterized in that it wherein the system comprises a fixed number M of time windows between two successive reference snapshots. (Par [0137], “Any delta or difference can be expressed in relation to a virtual copy instead of in relation to a baseline” and Par [0138], par [0167], “…For example, the difference sections might be represented as a bitmap where each set bit denotes a fixed size region where the two objects differ; or the differences might be represented procedurally as a series of function calls or callbacks.” And par [0216], “…The format used for data transfer is thus able to transfer only a delta or difference between two snapshots using bitmaps or extents.” and see figures 10 and 18B-19B).
MUTALIK discloses different times starting time, ending time, could represent a “time window” however not specifically discloses the “time window” and M and N.
Florissi specifically discloses the mentioned “time window” as follows: (Col. 64, lines 17-29, “…analytics is performed substantially continuously over multiple time windows collectively encompassing a long period of time. Given the nature of IoT and the fact that many data sources change the data zones that they connect to within the duration of these time intervals, the system 3400 is configured to automatically adapt to changes in data source locations and associated addresses. The system 3400 provides scalability in that the data does not need to be fully aggregated in a single location, and so there are no limits to the size of the data that can be analyzed in a distributed and parallel manner, and in near real-time.” Col. 6, lines 30-43, “The variables N, M and K denote arbitrary values, as embodiments of the invention can be configured using any desired number of WWH nodes 102, YARN clusters 104 and clients…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Florissi specifically a time window into the method of MUTALIK to take advantage on applying copy or snapshot during certain period of time. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement calculating an estimated time to do copies while updates are performed in order to have the recent snapshot.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and MUTALIK further discloses:
wherein the Bloom filter is associated with at least some of the said delta containers. (Par [0245], “…CAH-to-data mappings. In this embodiment it is implemented as a B-tree, mapping hashes from the hash generator to pages in the persistent data store 1118 that contain the data for this hash. Since the full B-tree cannot be held in memory at one time, for efficiency, this embodiment also uses an in-memory bloom filter to avoid expensive B-tree searches for hashes known not to be present…”).
As per Claims 7 and 10-11, being the system, processing circuit, and non-transitory computer claims corresponding to the method claim 1-4 and 6 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1-4 and 6 and further MUTALIK discloses: (Abstract and par [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, and 8-9 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Atluri; Rajeev (US-20100169591-A1), relates to a time-based graph 1200 illustrating host volume management in a time-based data storage application according to an embodiment of the present invention. Graph 1200 has an exemplary time line starting at 0 time and progressing at 15 minute intervals to illustrate points along the time line that are potential data recovery points-in-time.
ABERCROMBIE; Philip J. (US-20140344216-A1), relates to A temporal graph is received, the temporal graph including nodes, the nodes including hash references to objects. An accumulated difference count is updated when a node is added to the temporal graph, the accumulated difference count including a number of hash differences between a parent node and its children nodes in the temporal graph.
Henderson; Charles E. (US-20140143754-A1), relates to including organic programs expressed as a graph database.
TEKADE; Uday (US-20130339643-A1), relates to data model and operations for the temporal relationship graph stored for objects within the CAS.
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 December 27, 2025