DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/790,378 filed on July 31th, 2024.
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.
Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20; claims 1, 15 and 20 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
The claims reciting the limitations “identify[ing] a set of data object versions stored in a cloud storage and associated with a data object identifier,” “verify[ing] whether each data object version of the set of data object version is associated with a respective valid signature stored in the cloud storage system” and “obtain[ing] the data object version that is associated with the respective valid signature that is generated using a most recent timestamp among one or more timestamps associated with the set of data object versions” are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e, a cloud storage system). However, said additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identifying/verifying/obtaining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional element, said element taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. Obtaining the data object version that is associated with the respective valid signature that is generated using a most recent timestamp among one or more timestamps associated with the set of data object versions is conventional, well know routing in view of Berkeeimer memo here. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-14 & 16-18; claims 2-14 & 16-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo, U.S. Pub. Number 2020/0358621, in view of Wagner, U.S. Pub. Number 2023/0062434.
Regarding claim 1; Ngo discloses a method, comprising:
identifying, in accordance with a data recovery operation (par. 0095; recovery operations.), a set of data object versions stored in a cloud storage system (par. 0251; operate in the cloud.) and associated with a data object identifier (par. 0276; the comparison of signatures can be used to determine relationships between files/data object versions; for instance, files 300 and 320 have six data blocks in common, which corresponds to 75% of the datablocks in each file, which may suggest that the files are related (e.g., are different versions of the same file, that one of the files is derived from the other file, or that the files are derived from the same third file) or otherwise include related data; files 300 and 340 have one data block in common, which suggests that the files may contain less related data; the comparison of signatures provides an efficient way of identifying files that contain related data.);
verifying, using a cryptographic key, whether each data object version of the set of data object versions is associated with a respective valid signature stored in the cloud storage system, wherein a valid signature for a data object version of the set of data object versions is generated using a timestamp associated with upload of the data object version and the data object identifier (par. 0268; data block signatures (e.g., hashes or cryptographically unique IDs/keys) provide an efficient way to reference larger blocks of data; signatures can be used in data deduplication to identify and remove redundant data blocks and, e.g., replace them with references/pointers to a single stored instance of the data block; utilize data blocks signatures of deduplicated files (or other data objects) to efficiently learn information about the files; utilize file metadata and historical information stored in the information management system in combination with data block signatures; for instance, signatures and metadata can be used to identify potential security breaches in the information management system and to perform forensics upon identifying a potential security breach; such forensics can be used to provide information about how a potential security breach took place, to obtain a higher level of confidence that a potential security breach is an actual security breach.); and
obtaining, from the set of data object versions, the data object version that is associated with the respective valid signature that is generated using a most recent timestamp among one or more timestamps associated with the set of data object versions (pars. 0306-0308; upon detecting a potential security breach, determine an action based on the metadata and comparisons of signatures for the partitioned blocks, such as providing an alert (e.g., a graphical user interface alert, audible alert, email, text message, etc.) or logging the identified relationship; perform additional forensics or other analysis based on the metadata and historical information; investigate the potential security breach such as to obtain further confidence that the potential security breach is an actual security breach, or to learn more information about the security breach (e.g., how, where, and when it occurred).).
Ngo fails to explicitly disclose identify a set of data object versions stored in a cloud storage system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wagner discloses efficient and secure blockchains using cloud resource primitives comprising identify a set of data object versions stored in a cloud storage system (Wagner: par. 0111; verifiably immutable data (either with or without being verifiably deletion free) may be stored as a data version in a cloud provider network 120.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wagner into the method and system of Ngo comprising identify a set of data object versions stored in a cloud storage system to provide a wide variety of computing functionalities via the cloud (Wagner: par. 0003).
Regarding claim 2; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ngo further obtaining the data object version further comprises: obtaining the data object version from at least two data object versions associated with the respective valid signature that is generated using the most recent timestamp based at least in part on the data object version being an earliest written version of the at least two data object versions (Ngo: par. 0295; the comparison of signatures can be used to determine relationships between files; for instance, detects based on the comparison that the files have a threshold amount of signatures in common, determine that there is a likelihood that the files are copies of one another, modified versions or otherwise different versions of the same file, or otherwise related.).
Regarding claim 3; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, Wagner further discloses comprising: iterating through each data object version of the set of data object versions to identify the one or more timestamps associated with the set of data object versions (Wagner: par. 0120; for second and subsequent iterations of block 604, the set of participant nodes 210 may be reduced according to the number of successful transfers that have occurred; for instance, if 2 of 10 required transfers have occurred, the set of nodes 210 instructed at block 604 may be set to 8.).
Regarding claim 4; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein verifying whether each data object version of the set of data object versions further comprises: decrypting the respective valid signature for each data object version of the set of data object versions using the cryptographic key (Wagner: par. 0103; decrypting the encrypted representation and returning the plaintext in response to the read; for instance, the key is maintained at a single node 210, such as a node 210 associated with the client that submitted the erasable data; the key is propagated to multiple participant nodes 210 (e.g., multiple nodes 210 associated with the client, nodes 210 of different clients).).
Regarding claim 5; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1 Wagner further discloses comprising: decrypting the data object version using a private key, wherein each data object version of the set of data object versions in the cloud storage system are encrypted using the private key (Wagner: par. 0103; decrypting the encrypted representation and returning the plaintext in response to the read; for instance, the key is maintained at a single node 210, such as a node 210 associated with the client that submitted the erasable data; the key is propagated to multiple participant nodes 210 (e.g., multiple nodes 210 associated with the client, nodes 210 of different clients).).
Regarding claim 6; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1 Ngo further discloses comprising: refraining from obtaining a second data object version based at least in part on the second data object version being associated with an invalid signature or based at least in part on the second data object version lacking an associated signature payload (Ngo: par. 0132; payload data fan flow through media agent for the purposes of populating index, but not for writing to secondary storage device; media agent such as storage manager may incorporate additional functionality such as data classification, content indexing, deduplication, encryption, compression.).
Regarding claim 7; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ngo further discloses the valid signature for the data object version is generated using a hash-based message authentication code function and the cryptographic key (Ngo: par. 0268; data block signatures (e.g., hashes or cryptographically unique IDs) provide an efficient way to reference larger blocks of data.).
Regarding claim 8; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, Wagner further discloses comprising: obtaining, in accordance with the data recovery operation, the cryptographic key from the cloud storage system in order to verify whether each data object version is associated with the respective valid signature (Wagner: par. 0070; each block may be cryptographically linked to prior blocks within the blockchain, such as by include a cryptographic hash of the prior block within a current block; the chain data 216 may be used as an immutable ledger of transactions, enabling later verification of correctness for the distributed ledger; each participant apply function may update ledger state data to reflect a new “present” or “current” view of world state; the blockchain is updated to reflect approved transactions; updating of the blockchain does not require excessive computation.).
Regarding claim 9; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 8, Wagner further discloses comprising: verifying, in response to obtaining the cryptographic key and using a private key, the cryptographic key, wherein verifying whether each data object version is associated with the respective valid signature is performed in response to verifying the cryptographic key (Wagner: par. 0026; each transaction may be signed with a “private key” of an authorized party who is identified in the metadata (e.g., via a public key, according to public/private key cryptography) as having permission to perform the transaction; by reading the blockchain and metadata, an auditor (e.g., a party to the blockchain or an authorized third party) may verify the validity of each transaction.).
Regarding claim 10; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Wagner further discloses the cryptographic key is an advanced encryption standard key (Wagner: par. 0103; Advanced Encryption Standard algorithms using a key which may be generated by the node.).
Regarding claim 11; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ngo further discloses the valid signature for the data object version of the set of data object versions is stored in metadata associated with the data object version (Ngo: par. 0303; determining signatures (e.g., hashes or cryptographically unique IDs) and metadata (e.g., filenames, permissions, storage location, file types, storage types) for the target file and the partitioned blocks; for instance, perform a deduplication process in which redundant data blocks are replaced with references to other data blocks.).
Regarding claim 12; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Wagner further discloses the cloud storage system implements data object immutability procedure which locks each version of data objects from being modified and verifying whether each data object version is associated with the respective valid signature is performed based at least in part on the data object immutability procedure being implemented by the cloud storage system (Wagner: par. 0040; immutability of objects within the object stores 111, such that modification of an object is not possible; for instance, the servers 110 may accept instruction to designate an object as immutable, and thereafter decline an instruction to modify an object designated as immutable, or interpret such an instruction as a request to store a new object representing a modification of immutable object.).
Regarding claim 13; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, Ngo further discloses comprising: generating, in accordance with a data backup operation, a signature for a data object associated with a second data object identifier, wherein the signature is generated using a second timestamp and the second data object identifier; and uploading, in accordance with the data backup operation and to the cloud storage system, the data object and the signature, wherein the uploading results in a new version of the data object associated with the second data object identifier (Ngo: par. 0124; each data agent 142 may be configured to access data and metadata stored in the primary storage devices 104 associated with data agent 142 and its host client computing device 102, and process the data appropriately; for instance, during a secondary copy operation, data agent 142 may arrange or assemble the data and metadata into one or more files having a certain format (e.g., a particular backup or archive format) before transferring the files to a media agent 144 or other component; the files may include a list of files or other metadata.).
Regarding claim 14; Ngo and Wagner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ngo further discloses the data object identifier is a file path associated with the set of data object versions, a key value associated with the set of data object versions, or a combination thereof (Ngo: par. 0091; data path information specifying what components to communicate with or access in carrying out an operation.).
Regarding claim 15; Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16; Claim 16 is directed to the apparatus of claim 15 which has similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17; Claim 17 is directed to the apparatus of claim 15 which has similar scope as claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18; Claim 18 is directed to the apparatus of claim 15 which has similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19; Claim 19 is directed to the apparatus of claim 15 which has similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20; Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436