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 .
Continued Examination
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/19/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 06/19/2026
Claim 1 have been amended. Claims 11-15 have been cancelled. New claim 16 has been added. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claims 1-10 and 16 are presented in this office action.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of Indian Application No. IN202441027425 filed on 04/02/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Response to amendment/arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Please see office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 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. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWALLOW; Douglas Cary (US 20200382594 A1) in view of Schay; Peter Geza (US 20250165430 A1), Chopra; Shelesh (US 10289496 B1) and in further view of BREWER; Scott (US 20220156111 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, SWALLOW; Douglas Cary (US 20200382594 A1) teaches, a system comprising a memory storing one or more processor-executable routines and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and to a data storage device, wherein the processor is configured to execute the processor-executable routines in the memory (Paragraph [0059] Any given computing device comprises one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or single-core or multi-core processors), as well as corresponding non-transitory computer memory (e.g., random-access memory (RAM)) for storing computer programs which are to be executed by the one or more processors) and to access unstructured data stored in the data storage device (Paragraph [0069] discloses accessing unstructured data), wherein: the master node is configured to perform a backup operation comprising: generating a plurality of threads to perform a scan operation (Paragraph [0077] discloses, storage manager/ virtual machine (host) which can be a master node).
SWALLOW et al fails to explicitly teach, a master node and a plurality of proxy nodes, the master node and the proxy nodes; wherein during the scan operation a plurality of batches of data stored on a data storage device is scanned; creating a global queue of the plurality of batches of data and updating the global queue as the scan operation makes progress; determining an availability of one or more batches of data in the global queue; and assigning the plurality of batches of data from the global queue to one or more of the proxy nodes and/or to the master node as the one or more batches of data become available in the global queue during the scan operation, wherein further: the master node and each proxy node are configured to perform an upload operation by uploading the assigned batch of data on a cloud network; and the master node and the proxy nodes operate concurrently.
Schay; Peter Geza (US 20250165430 A1) teaches, wherein during the scan operation a plurality of batches of data stored on a data storage device is scanned (Paragraph [0024] discloses plurality of batches of entries are scanned by the scanning algorithm);
creating a global queue of the plurality of batches of data (Paragraph [0025] In one aspect, the worker processes are launched by the scanner for parallel processing of work queue entries, as entries are added. Each worker process is given a list of entries, that are referred to herein as a “batch” of work, to process);
and assigning the plurality of batches of data from the global queue to one or more of the proxy nodes and/or to the master node as the one or more batches of data become available in the global queue during the scan operation (Paragraph [0023] In one aspect, the innovative technology of the present disclosure includes a scanner that scans entries of a source file system (e.g., an NFS (Network File System) export or a SMB (Server Message Block) share on a storage system) and populates one or more work queues assigned to different worker processes (1-N) with a batch of entries (Examiner interprets data become available in the global queue as determining if the data is loaded in the queue)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al by providing wherein during the scan operation a plurality of batches of data stored on a data storage device is scanned; creating a global queue of the plurality of batches of data; and assigning the plurality of batches of data from the global queue to one or more of the proxy nodes and/or to the master node as the one or more batches of data become available in the global queue during the scan operation as taught by Schay et al (Paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it provides efficient and reliable solutions for archiving file system files, replicating the archives to cloud storage, and then verifying, extracting and updating the files from the archive data files as taught by Schay et al (Paragraph [0005]).
SWALLOW et al and Schay et al fails to explicitly teach, a master node and a plurality of proxy nodes, the master node and the proxy nodes; updating the global queue as the scan operation makes progress; determining an availability of one or more batches of data in the global queue.
Chopra; Shelesh (US 10289496 B1) teaches, a master node and a plurality of proxy nodes, the master node and the proxy nodes;
a system comprising a master node and a plurality of proxy nodes, the master node and the proxy nodes each comprising a memory storing one or more processor-executable routines and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and to a data storage device (Col 13, Lines, 49-67 (65));
wherein further: the master node and each proxy node are configured to perform an upload operation by uploading the assigned batch of data on a cloud network; the master node and the proxy nodes operate concurrently (Col 6, Lines, 6-13 (28) node cluster 149 includes primary or master node 150 that directs, via parallel proxy module 121, the backing up of data to or from secondary or slave nodes 151A-C. In one embodiment, backup server 101 also includes parallel proxy module 121 for directing the backing up of data to or from secondary or slave nodes 151A-C via the master node 150. Also see Col 7, Lines, 35-39 (35) (Examiner interprets parallel proxy module as parallel proxy node).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al and Schay et al by providing a master node and a plurality of proxy nodes, the master node and the proxy nodes; wherein further: the master node and each proxy node are configured to perform an upload operation by uploading the assigned batch of data on a cloud network; and the master node and the proxy nodes operate concurrently.
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, would provide an improved technique of backing up data using an RDBMS as taught by Chopra et al (Col 3, Lines 7-8 (16)).
SWALLOW et al, Schay et al and Chopra et al fails to explicitly teach, updating the global queue as the scan operation makes progress; determining an availability of one or more batches of data in the global queue.
BREWER; Scott (US 20220156111 A1) teaches, creating a global queue of the plurality of batches of data and updating the global queue as the scan operation makes progress; determining an availability of one or more batches of data in the global queue (Paragraphs [0028],[0029] discloses, creating a global queue/ task queue that corresponds to plurality of directories (Examiner interprets global queue as task queue. Based on specification Paragraph [0037] batch of data may refer to a root directory, or directories, sub-directories and files stored within the root directory. Examiner interprets a batch as plurality of directories) and if the scanning server 112A detects subdirectories within the directory 112, then the scanning server 112A inserts scanning tasks corresponding to those subdirectories into the task queues of other scanning servers 112 in a round robin fashion (Examiner interprets updating as inserting the tasks into the task queue during the scan) and determining the availability of one or more batches Examiner interprets determining is if the data/ directory is in present the queue)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al, Schay et al and Chopra et al by updating the global queue as the scan operation makes progress; determining an availability of one or more batches of data in the global queue as taught by BREWER et al (Paragraphs [0028], [0029]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it removes the inefficiencies and bottlenecks as taught by BREWER et al (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al teach, the system of claim 1.
SWALLOW et al further teaches, wherein the plurality of threads generated by the master node is configurable based on the plurality of batches of data (Paragraph[0314] discloses, generating plurality of scanning threads dynamically by a storage manager/ master node)).
Schay et al also further teaches, wherein the plurality of threads generated by the master node is configurable based on the plurality of batches of data (Paragraph [0032] A master reader (similar to the scanner) reads compressed batches of entries sequentially from the manifest file and launches a worker process for each batch of entries, enabling parallel processing of the manifest file entries)
Regarding dependent claim 10, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Schay et al further teaches, wherein the master node is further configured to maintain an order in which the batches of data are scanned (Paragraph [0032] A master reader (similar to the scanner) reads compressed batches of entries sequentially from the manifest file and launches a worker process for each batch of entries, enabling parallel processing of the manifest file entries (i.e., the master nodes maintain a sequential order in which the batches are scanned). Also see Paragraphs [0049], [0050]).
7. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWALLOW; Douglas Cary (US 20200382594 A1) in view of Schay; Peter Geza (US 20250165430 A1), Chopra; Shelesh (US 10289496 B1), BREWER; Scott (US 20220156111 A1) and in further view of Maccanti; Maximiliano (US 20210064476 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 2, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al teach, the system of claim 1.
SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the master node is further configured to dynamically maintain a state map; wherein the state map comprises a progress of the upload operation of each proxy node and the master node.
Maccanti; Maximiliano (US 20210064476 A1) teaches, wherein the master node is further configured to dynamically maintain a state map; wherein the state map comprises a progress of the upload operation of each proxy node and the master node (Paragraph [0056] discloses dynamically maintaining a state map comprising what files have been backed up/ completed and pending work (e.g., which partitions have not yet been successfully backed up or restored), and/or to handle failures encountered during backup and restore operations (e.g., to initiate retries). Also see Paragraph [0162], [0164]. proxy node and the master node is taught by Chopra et al (Col 6, Lines, 6-13 (28)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al by providing, wherein the master node is further configured to dynamically maintain a state map; wherein the state map comprises a progress of the upload operation of each proxy node and the master node as taught by Maccanti et al (Paragraph [0056]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the rolling cache 1002 provides a substantial history of all logged changes, the replication system is capable of recovering from network glitches or destination machine reboots without having to resynchronize the entire system. That is, the replication thread(s) are able to find the appropriate log entry (e.g., the log entry following the latest successfully replayed log entry) in the rolling cache 1002 and resume replication traffic to the destination system as taught by Maccanti et al (Paragraph [0228]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al, BREWER et al and Maccanti et al teach, the system of claim 2.
Maccanti et al further teaches, wherein the proxy nodes are configured to provide a status update to the master node upon completion of its respective upload operation (Paragraph [0056] discloses dynamically maintaining a state map comprising what files have been backed up/ completed and what files are pending (e.g., which partitions have not yet been successfully backed up or restored), and/or to handle failures encountered during backup and restore operations (e.g., to initiate retries). Also see Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al, BREWER et al and Maccanti et al teach, the system of claim 3.
Maccanti et al further teaches, wherein if the upload operation is interrupted at least one proxy node, the status update provided to the master node from the interrupted proxy node is “in progress.” (Paragraphs [0219], [0220] FIG. 10 illustrates an embodiment of a rolling cache configuration 1000 that provides for the tracking of the last successfully applied record on the destination machine(s), preserving not-yet-transferred records even across reboots (Examiner interprets tracking the last successfully applied record/completed backup record on the destination machine(s) and resumes the backup for the not-yet-transferred records/ in progress/ pending). Also see Paragraph [0226]).
8. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWALLOW; Douglas Cary (US 20200382594 A1) in view of Schay; Peter Geza (US 20250165430 A1), Chopra; Shelesh (US 10289496 B1), BREWER; Scott (US 20220156111 A1) and in further view of Bensberg; Christian ( US 20180232412 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 5, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al teach, the system of claim 1.
SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the master node is further configured to perform a checkpointing operation during the scan operation.
Bensberg; Christian ( US 20180232412 A1) teaches, wherein the master node is further configured to perform a checkpointing operation during the scan operation (Paragraph [0038], [0039] discloses master node is configured to perform checkpointing operation. Also see Paragraphs [0050], [0051], [0058]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al by providing, wherein the master node is further configured to perform a checkpointing operation during the scan operation, as taught by Bensberg et al (Paragraphs [0038], [0039]]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, In the event of an unexpected shutdown or system crash, the database can recover by rolling forward from the last successful checkpoint, rather than having to re-process all transactions from the very beginning of the transaction log. This significantly reduces recovery time.
Regarding dependent claim 6, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al teach, the system of claim 1.
SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the master node is configured to maintain a checkpoint database while performing checkpointing operation; wherein the checkpoint database comprises progress of each thread for a corresponding batch of data.
Bensberg; Christian ( US 20180232412 A1 ) teaches, wherein the master node is configured to maintain a checkpoint database while performing checkpointing operation (Paragraph [0038], [0039] discloses master node is configured to perform checkpointing operation. Also see Paragraphs [0050], [0051], [0058]).
wherein the checkpoint database comprises progress of each thread for a corresponding batch of data (Paragraph [0039] The database nodes 110 are symmetric, in other respects, as each node 110 has its own persistency store 130 for the results of persistency operations (e.g., log and checkpoint files). Also see Paragraph [0060], [0083] for progress of database operations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al by providing, wherein the master node is configured to maintain a checkpoint database while performing checkpointing operation; wherein the checkpoint database comprises progress of each thread for a corresponding batch of data, as taught by Bensberg et al (Paragraphs [0038], [0039]]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, In the event of an unexpected shutdown or system crash, the database can recover by rolling forward from the last successful checkpoint, rather than having to re-process all transactions from the very beginning of the transaction log. This significantly reduces recovery time.
Regarding dependent claim 7, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al, BREWER et al and Bensberg et al teach, the system of claim 6.
Bensberg et al further teaches, wherein master node is configured to dynamically update the checkpoint database with “in progress” scans while deleting “completed scans.” (Paragraph [0083] After the slave node 706 has written commit log entries for any transactions for which a commit ID was received in communication 742, at 754, the slave node can send a communication 758 to the master node 706 identifying such transactions, such as using a post commit callback operation. The master node 710 can remove those transactions, and their corresponding commit IDs, from the TID/CID reference at 762. At 766, the slave node 706 can restart or continue database operations that were pending at the time of the database system interruption, including using snapshot timestamps originally assigned to the database operations. Also see Paragraphs [0076], [0105]).
Regarding dependent claim 8, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al, BREWER et al and Bensberg et al teach, the system of claim 7.
Bensberg et al further teaches, wherein, upon interruption of the scan operation, the master node is configured to resume scanning “in progress” scans (Paragraph [0051] Regarding restoring a prior state of a database during recovery or restart, such as a point prior to database system interruption, typically one or more saved states of the database system are loaded (e.g., loaded into memory from persistent storage) and then database logs are replayed to finish updating the system. If the saved states and logs are maintained in order, they can be sequentially reloaded or replayed to restore the state of the database system. For instance, in some cases, at least for a particular type of backup, the backup may be represented as a single file that can be read sequentially to restore the state of the database system. In such cases, because of the sequential nature of the files, it may only be important to know whether or not a transaction was committed; the actual commit IDs may no longer be needed. Also see Paragraphs [0076], [0105]).
9. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWALLOW; Douglas Cary (US 20200382594 A1) in view of Schay; Peter Geza (US 20250165430 A1), Chopra; Shelesh (US 10289496 B1), BREWER; Scott (US 20220156111 A1) and in further view of Dhavale; Sanhita Praveen (US 20240403173 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 16, SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al teach, the system of claim 8.
SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein, during the sanitization of the checkpoint database upon interruption of the scan operation, the master node is configured to remove sub-directory entries from the checkpoint database and replace the removed sub-directory entries with corresponding parent directory entries, such that scanning resumes from the parent directory entries.
Dhavale; Sanhita Praveen (US 20240403173 A1) teaches, wherein, during the sanitization of the checkpoint database upon interruption of the scan operation, the master node is configured to remove sub-directory entries from the checkpoint database and replace the removed sub-directory entries with corresponding parent directory entries, such that scanning resumes from the parent directory entries (Paragraph [0032] the checkpoint data tracks progress of the instance of the storage operation, such as progress of each sub operation of the storage operation (e.g., each instance entry may correspond to restoring a particular subdirectory of a directory). Paragraph [0033] The storage operation may be implemented as a directory restore operation (e.g., a multi-level directory restore operation 120) that utilizes the base metafile and the set of instance metafiles to restore a directory of any depth, breadth, or size. During implementation of the storage operation, an entry (e.g., an instance entry) is updated in response to a batch of files within the directory or a subdirectory being restored, thus creating a checkpoint indicating that the batch of files have already been restored and do not need to be re-restored if the storage operation is restarted/resumed after a failure. Also see [0017]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SWALLOW et al, Schay et al, Chopra et al and BREWER et al by providing, wherein, during the sanitization of the checkpoint database upon interruption of the scan operation, the master node is configured to remove sub-directory entries from the checkpoint database and replace the removed sub-directory entries with corresponding parent directory entries, such that scanning resumes from the parent directory entries, as taught by Dhavale et al (Paragraphs [0032], [0033]]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, checkpoints are tracked using base and instance metafiles so that if the storage operation is aborted, then the storage operation can be restarted/resumed from a subdirectory that was last being restored without having to start from the beginning and without restoring already restored files and subdirectories as taught by Dhavale et al (Paragraphs [0017], [0013]).
Closest Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Prahland; Anand (US 20070185939 A1) teaches, Performing data management operations on replicated data in a computer network. Log entries are generated for data management operations of an application executing on a source system. Consistency point entries are used to indicate a time of a known good, or recoverable, state of the application. A destination system is configured to process a copy of the log and consistency point entries to replicate data in a replication volume, the replicated data being a copy of the application data on the source system. When the replicated data represents a known good state of the application, as determined by the consistency point entries, the destination system(s) may perform a storage operation (e.g., snapshot, backup) to copy the replicated data and to logically associate the copied data with a time information (e.g., time stamp) indicative of the source system time when the application was in the known good state (Abstract).
11. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights