Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
The Request for continued Examination, filed on 02/26/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. In the Amendment, applicant amended claims 1, 13, 20-21, 24 and 25. As to Arguments and Remarks filed in the Amendment, please see Examiner’s responses shown after Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103
Please note claims 1-12 and 21-25 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 (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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-12 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0382648, hereinafter Kamath), in view of Borden et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0180128, hereinafter Borden) and further in view of Vallabhaneni et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0210342, hereinafter Vallabhaneni).
As per as claim 1, Kamath discloses:
A method, comprising:
building, by a computing device, an inventory of existing backups in a legacy system (Kamath, e.g., figs. 3-4, associating with texts description, [0047-0051], “…determined that a backup asset is ready to be transitioned from a legacy system to a new system, but still requires access to older backups, such as may have been created with the legacy system… backup operations may be performed by backup assets in the new data protection system…”);
initiating, by the computing device, a restore for the existing backups in the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset…”);
intercepting, by the computing device, a plurality of operations of the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0076-0077], “…Recovery operations may be performed by the legacy backup asset as though those recovery operations were being directed by the legacy backup system… the legacy backup asset is in state …perform backup operations as it would if it were a native asset of the new backup system, that is, the legacy backup asset may perform backup operations in the way that backup operations t are performed in the new backup system…”):
Kamath disclose backups in the legacy system which including a plurality of operations (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], [0084-0085], “....a legacy backup asset type may be identified, such as by an administrator or by a new backup system, where example asset types include a filesystem backup asset, or a database backup asset... Metadata relating to the legacy backup asset and the legacy backup system may then be migrated...), does not explicitly discloses “ logging, by the computing device, a plurality of objects which were read during the plurality of operations of the legacy system ;
in response to the logging, sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern that is based on the plurality of objects;
building, by the computing device, a storage map using the data which comprises the specific marker pattern”.
However Borden, in an analogous art, discloses “logging, by the computing device, a plurality of objects which were red during the plurality of operations of the legacy system” (Borden, e.g., [0127-0131], “… metadata for the received file is associated with the existing content signature that matches the received file content signature... stores the metadata in metadata repository... a multi-page image file, image files... a log file, a database, a table, an append only file, and instant messenger archive, a chat archive, a history file, a journal, a virtual file system...”);
in response to the logging, sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern that is based on the plurality of objects (Borden, e.g., [0014], “...a file is stored, any common blocks or chunks of data that are common with previously stored files are remembered with pointers...”, [0073-0077], “... Legacy back-up system 410 gathers files from information source clients, and backs-up files by storing the files on storage device...a pointer will be created identifying where the file is stored” (specific marker pattern on the plurality of objects);
building, by the computing device, a storage map using the data which comprises the specific marker pattern (Borden, e.g., [0073-0076], [0193-0194], [0199], “... content signature files get copied into certain directories. These can be monitored to see who has the capability to take information out of the facility...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Borden and Kamath to restore files if a network or computer crashes and organization by file name or volume where the data is stored, and accessing or retrieving files stored in a backup system (Borden, e.g., [0007-008]).
The combination of Borden and Kamath do not explicitly disclose “wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations of the existing backups and which are used to determine offsets within individual files of the existing backups being restored”.
However Vallabhaneni, in an analogous art, discloses “wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations of the existing backups and which are used to determine offsets within individual files of the existing backups being restored” (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0024], [0026], “... intercept a read operation by the database application to access one or more database blocks in the secondary copy of the archive file; determine an offset of the one or more database blocks accessed by the read operation; identify a block that corresponds to the offset; and send a request to the at least one secondary storage controller computer to restore the identified block from the one or more secondary storage devices in the secondary storage subsystem...” and [0092], [0103], [0148], “...last modified time (e.g., the time of the most recent modification of the data object), a data object name (e.g., a file name), a data object size (e.g., a number of bytes of data), information about the content...creation date, file type (e.g., format or application type), last accessed time, application type (e.g., type of application that generated the data object), location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure, user permissions, owners, groups, access control lists [ACLs]), system metadata (e.g., registry information)...” and [0231], “... backup history, data aging history, auxiliary copy history, job history, library and drive, media in library, restore history, and storage policy...”) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath to restore a database object in a backed up database file without restoring the entire backup database file, thereby speeding up restore operations and reducing consumption of storage and processing resources (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0002-0005]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
(Currently Amed) The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the computing device, a user input comprising a source client and a retention policy (Kamath, e.g., [008], [0051], “retention policy”) and (Borden, e.g., [0143-0144]), wherein the storage map further comprises an address of at least one storage device within the legacy system and details on where portions of individual objects or data blocks of the at least one storage device are within the legacy system (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0090-0092], “...organize the primary data...include files, directories, file system volumes, data blocks, extents, or any other hierarchies or organizations of data objects. As used herein, a “data object” can refer to both (1) any file that is currently addressable by a file system or that was previously addressable by the file system (e.g., an archive file) and (2) a subset of such a file (e.g., a data block)...”).
AS pe as claim 3, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 2, further comprising pruning, by the computing device, the inventory of existing backups based on the received user input (Kamath, e.g., [0058-0060], “…updated or modified… applies to multiple backup assets…”) and (Borden, e.g., [0073-0075]) and (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0090-0092], “...organize the primary data...include files, directories, file system volumes, data blocks, extents, or any other hierarchies or organizations of data objects...” and further see [0274], disclose updating).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising mimicking, by the computing device, restore requests for long term retention backups in the legacy system by utilizing a command line interface (Kamath, e.g., fig. 7, associating with texts description, [0031], [0060-0063]) and see (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0099-101], “...allowing point-in-time recovery; complying with regulatory data retention and electronic discovery (e-discovery)...implementing data retention policies...long-term retention (e.g., weeks, months or years)...” and [0416], “...command line interfaces...”).
As per as claim 5, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operations comprises a plurality of input/output operations (Kamath, e.g., fig. 7, associating with texts description, [0031], [0060-0063]) and (Bode, e.g., [0032]).
As per as claim 6, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising logging, by the computing device,
a plurality of blocks that were attempted to be read in the plurality of operations (Kamath, e.g., [0022], [0033], “…service read, write, delete, backup, restore, and/or cloning, operations initiated by one or more clients or other elements of the operating environment…” and [0048], [0052], “… monitor performance of the legacy backup system. Information obtained as a result of the discovering and monitoring processes performed by and/or at the direction of the abstraction layer may be passed by the abstraction layer 400 back to the new backup system…”).
As per as claim 7, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 6, further comprising determining, by the computing device, what address was trying to be read in the plurality of operations for at least one storage device in the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0022], [0033], “…service read, write, delete, backup, restore, and/or cloning, operations initiated by one or more clients or other elements of the operating environment…” and [0048], [0052], “… monitor performance of the legacy backup system. Information obtained as a result of the discovering and monitoring processes performed by and/or at the direction of the abstraction layer may be passed by the abstraction layer 400 back to the new backup system…”)..
As per as claim 8, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 7, wherein the data comprises the address that was trying to be read in the plurality of operations for the at least one storage device in the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0022], [0033], “…service read, write, delete, backup, restore, and/or cloning, operations initiated by one or more clients or other elements of the operating environment…” and [0048], [0052], “… monitor performance of the legacy backup system. Information obtained as a result of the discovering and monitoring processes performed by and/or at the direction of the abstraction layer may be passed by the abstraction layer 400 back to the new backup system…”)..
As per as claim 9, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose: The method of claim 1, further comprising initiating, by the computing device, a backup of data corresponding to the built storage map (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset …”) and (Borden, e.g., [0073-0076], [0193-0194], [0199], “... content signature files get copied into certain directories. These can be monitored to see who has the capability to take information out of the facility...”).
As per as claim 10, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath disclose: The method of claim 9, further comprising writing, by the computing device, the backup of data in another storage device corresponding to the built storage map in response to initiating the backup of data (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset…”) and (Borden, e.g., [0073-0076], [0193-0194], [0199], “... content signature files get copied into certain directories. These can be monitored to see who has the capability to take information out of the facility...”).
As per as claim 11, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Bode and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 10, further comprising marking, by the computing device, the backup of data as restored and ready to be expired (Kamath, e.g., [008], [0051], “retention policy”) and (Borden, e.g., [0017], “centralized servers”, [0073-0074], [0143-144], “…retention…”) and further see (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0099-101]).
As per as claim 12, the combination of Vallabhaneni, Bode and Kamath disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes software provided as a service in a cloud environment (Borden, e.g., [0017], [0073-0075], “…centralized servers…”) and (Kamath, e.g., [0033-0035], “…data protection environment that may take the form of a public or private cloud storage environment, an on-premises storage environment, and hybrid storage environments that include public and private elements…”).
Claim 21 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it set forth the claimed invention as system rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claim 1.
As per as claim 22, the combination of Bode and Kamath disclose:
The system of claim 21, wherein the storage map further comprises an address of at least one storage device within the legacy system and details on where portions of individual objects or data blocks of the at least one storage device are within the legacy system (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0090-0092], “...organize the primary data...include files, directories, file system volumes, data blocks, extents, or any other hierarchies or organizations of data objects. As used herein, a “data object” can refer to both (1) any file that is currently addressable by a file system or that was previously addressable by the file system (e.g., an archive file) and (2) a subset of such a file (e.g., a data block)...”) and (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset…”) and further (Borden, e.g., [0073-0076], [0193-0194], [0199], “... content signature files get copied into certain directories. These can be monitored to see who has the capability to take information out of the facility...”).
As per as claim 23, the combination of Bode and Kamath disclose:
The system of claim 21, wherein the program instructions are further executable to: mimick restore requests for long term retention backups in the legacy system by utilizing a command line interface (CLI) (Kamath, e.g., fig. 7, associating with texts description, [0031], [0060-0063]) and see (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0099-101], “...allowing point-in-time recovery; complying with regulatory data retention and electronic discovery (e-discovery)...implementing data retention policies...long-term retention (e.g., weeks, months or years)...” and [0416], “...command line interfaces...”); and
write the backup of data in another storage device corresponding to the built storage map in response to initiating the backup of data (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset…”) and (Borden, e.g., [0073-0076], [0193-0194], [0199], “... content signature files get copied into certain directories. These can be monitored to see who has the capability to take information out of the facility...”).
As per as claim 24, Kamath discloses:
(Currently amended) A method, comprising:
building, by a computing device, an inventory of existing backups in a legacy system (Kamath, e.g., figs. 3-4, associating with texts description, [0047-0051], “…determined that a backup asset is ready to be transitioned from a legacy system to a new system, but still requires access to older backups, such as may have been created with the legacy system… backup operations may be performed by backup assets in the new data protection system…”);
initiating, by the computing device, a restore for the existing backups in the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset…”);
intercepting, by the computing device, a plurality of operations of the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0076-0077], “…Recovery operations may be performed by the legacy backup asset as though those recovery operations were being directed by the legacy backup system… the legacy backup asset is in state …perform backup operations as it would if it were a native asset of the new backup system, that is, the legacy backup asset may perform backup operations in the way that backup operations are performed in the new backup system…”);
sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern in response to intercepting the plurality of operations (Kamath, e.g., [0036], [0071], “…service template may be specific to a particular type of legacy backup asset …respective address associated with each of the containers may be used to identify and manage the legacy backup asset…” and [0084-0086], “…created that is specific to the legacy backup asset. The wrapper service instance may be created by a service handler using a template… migration of the metadata, the legacy backup asset is able to receive backup calls and restore calls from the new backup system…”);
building, by the computing device at least one virtual filesystem based on the built storage map (Kamath, e.g., [0060-0063], “…client API interfaces which may collectively define part or all of a ‘contract layer,’ various components which may provide for the discovery, interface with, and use of, backup assets, such as NetWorker backup assets…”);
exposing, by the computing device, the at least one virtual filesystem to the data to be backed up (Kamath, e.g., [0060-0063], “…backup/index entries, such as by way of a query to a media/index database. Finally, the wrapper service instance may enable a backup/recovery request originating from the data protection manager/service…”); and
initiating, by the computing device, a backup of the data to be backed up in response to exposing the at least one virtual filesystem to the data to be backed up (Kamath, e.g., [0060-0063], “… backup assets 604 is type ‘FS’ (File System) which may operate to backup a file system…legacy backup asset to facilitate the transition of the legacy backup asset into a new backup system such as the data protection manager/service…”).
Kamath disclose backups in the legacy system which including a plurality of operations (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], [0084-0085], “....a legacy backup asset type may be identified, such as by an administrator or by a new backup system, where example asset types include a filesystem backup asset, or a database backup asset... Metadata relating to the legacy backup asset and the legacy backup system may then be migrated...), does not explicitly discloses “ logging, by the computing device, a plurality of objects which were read during the plurality of operations of the legacy system ;
in response to the logging, sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern that is based on the plurality of objects;
building, by the computing device, a storage map using the data which comprises the specific marker pattern”.
However Borden, in an analogous art, discloses “logging, by the computing device, a plurality of objects which were red during the plurality of operations of the legacy system” (Borden, e.g., [0127-0131], “… metadata for the received file is associated with the existing content signature that matches the received file content signature... stores the metadata in metadata repository... a multi-page image file, image files... a log file, a database, a table, an append only file, and instant messenger archive, a chat archive, a history file, a journal, a virtual file system...”);
in response to the logging, sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern that is based on the plurality of objects (Borden, e.g., [0014], “...a file is stored, any common blocks or chunks of data that are common with previously stored files are remembered with pointers...”, [0073-0077], “... Legacy back-up system 410 gathers files from information source clients, and backs-up files by storing the files on storage device...a pointer will be created identifying where the file is stored” (specific marker pattern on the plurality of objects);
building, by the computing device, a storage map using the data which comprises the specific marker pattern (Borden, e.g., [0073-0076], [0193-0194], [0199], “... content signature files get copied into certain directories. These can be monitored to see who has the capability to take information out of the facility...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Borden and Kamath to restore files if a network or computer crashes and organization by file name or volume where the data is stored, and accessing or retrieving files stored in a backup system (Borden, e.g., [0007-008]).
The combination of Borden and Kamath do not explicitly disclose “wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations of the existing backups and which are used to determine offsets within individual files of the existing backups being restored”.
However Vallabhaneni, in an analogous art, discloses “wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations of the existing backups and which are used to determine offsets within individual files of the existing backups being restored” (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0024], [0026], “... intercept a read operation by the database application to access one or more database blocks in the secondary copy of the archive file; determine an offset of the one or more database blocks accessed by the read operation; identify a block that corresponds to the offset; and send a request to the at least one secondary storage controller computer to restore the identified block from the one or more secondary storage devices in the secondary storage subsystem...” and [0092], [0103], [0148], “...last modified time (e.g., the time of the most recent modification of the data object), a data object name (e.g., a file name), a data object size (e.g., a number of bytes of data), information about the content...creation date, file type (e.g., format or application type), last accessed time, application type (e.g., type of application that generated the data object), location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure, user permissions, owners, groups, access control lists [ACLs]), system metadata (e.g., registry information)...” and [0231], “... backup history, data aging history, auxiliary copy history, job history, library and drive, media in library, restore history, and storage policy...”) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath to restore a database object in a backed up database file without restoring the entire backup database file, thereby speeding up restore operations and reducing consumption of storage and processing resources (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0002-0005]).
As per as claim 25, Kamath discloses:
(Currently amended) A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:
build an inventory of existing backups in a legacy system (Kamath, e.g., figs. 3-4, associating with texts description, [0047-0051], “…determined that a backup asset is ready to be transitioned from a legacy system to a new system, but still requires access to older backups, such as may have been created with the legacy system… backup operations may be performed by backup assets in the new data protection system…”);
initiate a restore for the existing backups in the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], “…legacy backup asset concerning which the backup and/or recovery was initiated… backup and restore operations performed by the legacy backup asset…”);
intercept a plurality of operations of the legacy system (Kamath, e.g., [0076-0077], “…Recovery operations may be performed by the legacy backup asset as though those recovery operations were being directed by the legacy backup system… the legacy backup asset is in state …perform backup operations as it would if it were a native asset of the new backup system, that is, the legacy backup asset may perform backup operations in the way that backup operations are performed in the new backup system…”);
send mimicked restore data which comprises a specific marker pattern in response to interception of the plurality of operations (Kamath, e.g., [0036], [0071], “…service template may be specific to a particular type of legacy backup asset …respective address associated with each of the containers may be used to identify and manage the legacy backup asset…” and [0084-0086], “…created that is specific to the legacy backup asset. The wrapper service instance may be created by a service handler using a template… migration of the metadata, the legacy backup asset is able to receive backup calls and restore calls from the new backup system…”);
build at least one virtual filesystem based on the built storage map (Kamath, e.g., [0060-0063], “…client API interfaces which may collectively define part or all of a ‘contract layer,’ various components which may provide for the discovery, interface with, and use of, backup assets, such as NetWorker backup assets…”);
expose the at least one virtual filesystem to the data to be backed up (Kamath, e.g., [0060-0063], “…backup/index entries, such as by way of a query to a media/index database. Finally, the wrapper service instance may enable a backup/recovery request originating from the data protection manager/service…”); and
initiate a backup of the data to be backed up in response to exposing the at least one virtual filesystem to the data to be backed up, wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations and is used to determine offsets within individual files being restored (Kamath, e.g., [0060-0063], “… backup assets 604 is type ‘FS’ (File System) which may operate to backup a file system…legacy backup asset to facilitate the transition of the legacy backup asset into a new backup system such as the data protection manager/service…” and [0066-0068], “… data protection system addressable endpoint by way of which the data protection system…).
Kamath disclose backups in the legacy system which including a plurality of operations (Kamath, e.g., [0065-0068] and [0076-0077], [0084-0085], “....a legacy backup asset type may be identified, such as by an administrator or by a new backup system, where example asset types include a filesystem backup asset, or a database backup asset... Metadata relating to the legacy backup asset and the legacy backup system may then be migrated...), does not explicitly discloses “determine addresses which were read during the plurality of operations of the legacy system”; “ logging, by the computing device, a plurality of objects which were read during the plurality of operations of the legacy system ;
in response to the logging, sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern that is based on the plurality of objects;
building a storage map using mimicked restore the data and the determined addresses which were read during the plurality of operations”.
However Borden, in an analogous art, discloses “determine addresses which were read during the plurality of operations of the legacy system” (Borden, e.g., [0121], [0145], [0172], [0181], “...documents have been read recently. Conceivably, if they are read often and recently they are likely a very relevant document...”, [0193-0194]], “...signature files get copied into certain directories...”), “logging, by the computing device, a plurality of objects which were red during the plurality of operations of the legacy system” (Borden, e.g., [0127-0131], “… metadata for the received file is associated with the existing content signature that matches the received file content signature... stores the metadata in metadata repository... a multi-page image file, image files... a log file, a database, a table, an append only file, and instant messenger archive, a chat archive, a history file, a journal, a virtual file system...”);
in response to the logging, sending, by the computing device, data which comprises a specific marker pattern that is based on the plurality of objects (Borden, e.g., [0014], “...a file is stored, any common blocks or chunks of data that are common with previously stored files are remembered with pointers...”, [0073-0077], “... Legacy back-up system 410 gathers files from information source clients, and backs-up files by storing the files on storage device...a pointer will be created identifying where the file is stored” (specific marker pattern on the plurality of objects);
building a storage map using mimicked restore the data and the determined addresses which were read during the plurality of operations (Borden, e.g., [0073-0074], [0121], [0145], [0172], [0181], “...documents have been read recently. Conceivably, if they are read often and recently they are likely a very relevant document...”, [0193-0194], [0199], “...signature files get copied into certain directories...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Borden and Kamath to restore files if a network or computer crashes and organization by file name or volume where the data is stored, and accessing or retrieving files stored in a backup system (Borden, e.g., [0007-008]).
The combination of Borden and Kamath do not explicitly disclose “wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations of the existing backups and which are used to determine offsets within individual files of the existing backups being restored”.
However Vallabhaneni, in an analogous art, discloses “wherein the specific marker pattern comprises embedded patterns to mark data locations of the existing backups and which are used to determine offsets within individual files of the existing backups being restored” (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0024], [0026], “... intercept a read operation by the database application to access one or more database blocks in the secondary copy of the archive file; determine an offset of the one or more database blocks accessed by the read operation; identify a block that corresponds to the offset; and send a request to the at least one secondary storage controller computer to restore the identified block from the one or more secondary storage devices in the secondary storage subsystem...” and [0092], [0103], [0148], “...last modified time (e.g., the time of the most recent modification of the data object), a data object name (e.g., a file name), a data object size (e.g., a number of bytes of data), information about the content...creation date, file type (e.g., format or application type), last accessed time, application type (e.g., type of application that generated the data object), location/network (e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), geographic location (e.g., GPS coordinates), frequency of change (e.g., a period in which the data object is modified), business unit (e.g., a group or department that generates, manages or is otherwise associated with the data object), aging information (e.g., a schedule, such as a time period, in which the data object is migrated to secondary or long term storage), boot sectors, partition layouts, file location within a file folder directory structure, user permissions, owners, groups, access control lists [ACLs]), system metadata (e.g., registry information)...” and [0231], “... backup history, data aging history, auxiliary copy history, job history, library and drive, media in library, restore history, and storage policy...”) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Vallabhaneni, Borden and Kamath to restore a database object in a backed up database file without restoring the entire backup database file, thereby speeding up restore operations and reducing consumption of storage and processing resources (Vallabhaneni, e.g., [0002-0005]).
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/26/2026 with respect to claims 1-12 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment to the claims. Applicant's newly amended features are taught implicitly, expressly, or impliedly by the prior art of record (See the new ground(s) of rejection set forth herein above).
The Examiner respectfully submits that, with respect to the totally newly amended subject matter, the Examiner respectfully cited proper paragraphs from cited reference to reject the claim in responsive to the newly amended, please refer to the corresponding section of the office action.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to backup data migration without restore based migration which bypasses a need to integrate with a legacy backup client to move data into a new backup system and exposes the data via a virtual filesystem that is used to access the data or migrate the data based on a customer request.
a. Huang et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0011031, hereafter Huang); “Storing Log Data Efficiently While Supporting Query” discloses “logging system which includes an event receiver and a storage manager. The manager receives and stores chunks. The receiver includes buffers that store events and a metadata structure that stores metadata about the contents of the buffers. Each buffer is associated with a particular event field and includes values from that field from one or more events. The metadata includes, for each "field of interest," a minimum value and a maximum value that reflect the range of values of that field over all of the events in the buffers. A chunk is generated for each buffer and includes the metadata structure and a compressed version of the buffer contents”.
Huang further teaches retention policy [0015], multiple retention policies exist, and each datafile is associated with any one of the multiple retention policies [108-0110], legacy system [0047].
Huang also teaches control system maintains a "write pointer" that indicates a location within a datafile where a chunk can be written [0098].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 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 can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights