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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 have been amended. Claims 14-17 have been cancelled. Claims 22-25 have been newly added. Claims 1-13 and 18-25 are now pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, line 11, recites “configured to cause less resources to be used for generation, retention, or management” performing functionality. It indicates intended use; Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. Therefore intended use limitations are not required to be taught, see MPEP 2111.04.
Similar problem exists in claims 11 and 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: access data representative of a set of snapshot rules defining various separate snapshot requirements that collectively specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset; analyze the set of snapshot rules collectively to identify and use at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules to determine, a second set of snapshots of the dataset that satisfy the various separate snapshot requirements, wherein the second set of snapshots is different from the first set of snapshots in one or more ways configured to cause less resources to be used for generation, retention, or management of the second set of snapshots than would have been used to generate, retain, or manage the first set of snapshots; and generate the second set of snapshots of the dataset”.
The limitations of “A
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “system”, “memory” and “processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “memory” and “processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “system”, “memory” and “processor” to perform the claimed steps. The ““system”, “memory” and “processor”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises using a single snapshot from the first set of snapshots to satisfy multiple snapshot rules in the set of snapshot rules”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “using the single snapshot from the first set of snapshots to satisfy the multiple snapshot rules comprises modifying metadata of the single snapshot to indicate that the single snapshot is mapped to the multiple snapshot rules”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises reusing a first snapshot, which was captured to satisfy a first snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, to satisfy a second snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, instead of capturing a second snapshot to satisfy the second snapshot rule”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset further comprises adjusting a retention period of the first snapshot to satisfy the second snapshot rule”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises reusing a first snapshot, which was captured to satisfy a first snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, to satisfy a second snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, and discarding a second snapshot that was captured to satisfy the second snapshot rule”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the set of snapshot rules comprises a first snapshot rule and a second snapshot rule; the first set of snapshots of the dataset comprises a first snapshot corresponding to the first snapshot rule and a second snapshot corresponding to the second snapshot rule; and the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises a modified version of the first snapshot or the second snapshot mapped to both the first snapshot rule and the second snapshot rule”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the modified version of the first snapshot or the second snapshot comprises metadata modified to map the modified version of the first snapshot to both the first snapshot rule and the second snapshot rule”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the set of snapshot rules each defines a respective snapshot capture frequency and a respective snapshot retention period”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method of a data storage system, the method comprising: accessing, by a snapshot management system, data representative of a set of snapshot rules defining various separate snapshot requirements that collectively specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset for a period of time; analyzing, by the snapshot management system, the set of snapshot rules collectively to identify and use on at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules to determine, a second set of snapshots of the dataset that satisfy the various separate snapshot requirements for the period of time, wherein the second set of snapshots is different from the first set of snapshots in one or more ways configured to cause less resources to be used for at least one of generation, retention, or management of the second set of snapshots than would have been used to generate, retain, or manage the first set of snapshots; and generating, by the snapshot management system, the second set of snapshots of the dataset”.
The limitations of “A computer-implemented method of a
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “data storage system” to perform the claimed steps. The “data storage system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “data storage system” to perform the claimed steps. The “data storage system”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises using a single snapshot from the first set of snapshots to satisfy multiple snapshot rules in the set of snapshot rules”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, that when executed by a processor, direct the processor to perform a process comprising: accessing data representative of a set of snapshot rules defining various separate snapshot requirements that collectively specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset; analyzing the set of snapshot rules collectively to identify and use at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules to determine rules, a second set of snapshots of the dataset that satisfy the various separate snapshot requirements, wherein the second set of snapshots is different from the first set of snapshots in one or more ways configured to cause less resources to be used for at least one of generation, retention, or management of the second set of snapshots than would have been used to generate, retain, or manage the first set of snapshots; and generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as ““A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a processor”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the set of snapshot rules includes a snapshot rule labeled to indicate the at least one flexibility is associated with the snapshot rule”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ identifying the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the at least on flexibility comprising an implied flexibility identified based on a lack of an express indication of rigidity in the set of snapshot rules”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the second set of snapshots of the dataset includes fewer snapshots than the first set of snapshots of dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset instead of the first set of snapshots of the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises: adjusting the set of rules to form an adjusted set of rules that collectively specify the second set of snapshots of the dataset; and using the adjusted set of rules to generate the second set of snapshots of the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the at least one flexibility comprises a requirement to capture a snapshot on a particular day without a requirement to capture the snapshot at a particular time of day”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966).
Referring to claim 1, Chopra et al. teaches a system comprising:
a memory (memory, see Chopra et al., Para. 19) storing instructions; and
a processor (one or more processors, see Chopra et al., Para. 19) communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
access data representative of a set of snapshot rules defining various separate snapshot requirements (The production agent may utilize backup policies to determine: (i) when to generate a backup and (ii) what type of backup to generate, see Chopra et al., Para. 17. The backups (160) may be of different types (e.g., full, differential, and/or incremental), see Chopra et al., Para. 21) that that collectively specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, full backups may be scheduled to be generated every 24 hours, every 7 days, see Chopra et al., Para. 26, the determination is determined based on the backup policies. If a backup has not been generated within a predetermined time period (e.g., 24 hours), the determination is made that a full backup is required, see Chopra et al., Para. 35);
analyze the set of snapshot rules collectively to identify and use at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26) to determine a second set of snapshots of the dataset that satisfy the various separate snapshot requirements, wherein the second set of snapshots is different from the first set of snapshots (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26) in one or more ways configured to cause less resources to be used for generation, retention, or management of the second set of snapshots than would have been used to generate, retain, or manage the first set of snapshots (An incremental backup ( e.g., 182, 184) may be a log of transactions (e.g., data written to the database) that occur during a period of time after the previous most recent backup (which may be a full backup or a differential backup) was generated. The incremental backup may also be referred to as a transactional log backup, see Chopra et al., Para. 24, wherein the log of transaction stores only transactions without dataset, so that the resource used for generation, retention or management is much less than generate a full backup of the dataset, wherein the dataset in reference is a database, “backup generation is triggered by the production agent following a backup policy that specifies when a backup of a database, see Chopra et al., Para. 33”); and
generate the second set of snapshots of the dataset (an incremental backup is generated storing data since the last backup, see Chopra et al., Para. 40).
Referring to claim 18, Chopra et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (memory, see Chopra et al., Para. 19) storing instructions, that when executed by a processor, direct the processor to perform a process, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
As to claim 23, Chopra et al. teaches generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset instead of the first set of snapshots of the dataset (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26. The backup created on different time is different set of snapshot of the dataset).
As to claim 25, Chopra et al. teaches the at least one flexibility comprises a requirement to capture a snapshot on a particular day without a requirement to capture the snapshot at a particular time of day (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26).
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 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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966) in view of Wong et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0250046).
As to claim 2, Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset.
However, Wong et al. teaches generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules (The one or more processors configured to acquire one or more transaction logs for the database that include a set of data changes to the database between the first point in time and the second point in time and instantiate a database engine in response to detection that the server is unable to provide the second snapshot of the database at the second point in time, see Wong et al., Para. 98), the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset (the data associated with the full image Base2 may be equivalent to the forward incremental F2 in FIG. 2A patched over Fl and the full image Base in FIG. 2A, see Wong et al., Para. 61, generate the second snapshot of the database via application of the set of data changes to the first snapshot of the database using the database engine and terminate the database engine. The one or more processors configured to store the second snapshot of the database using the memory, see Wong et al., Para. 98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset, as taught by Wong et al., to reduce the amount of time to restore a database or other application (Wong et al., Abstract).
As to claim 3, Chopra et al. as modified teaches adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises using a single snapshot from the first set of snapshots to satisfy multiple snapshot rules in the set of snapshot rules (A forward incremental file may include a set of data representing changes that have occurred since an earlier point in time snapshot of a virtual machine, see Wong et al., Para. 35, each snapshot chain comprises a full image snapshot and one or more incremental snapshots, see Wong et al., Para. 69, wherein “each incremental snapshot” corresponding to “a snapshot rule”, so that “one or more incremental snapshots” corresponding to “multiple snapshot rules” using a single “a full image snapshot” in a “snapshot chain”). As to claim 4, Chopra et al. as modified teaches wherein using the single snapshot from the first set of snapshots to satisfy the multiple snapshot rules comprises modifying metadata of the single snapshot (The metadata information may include the name of a file, a size of the file, file permissions associated with the file, when the file was last modified, and file mapping information associated with an identification of the location of the file stored within a cluster of physical machines, see Wong et al., Para. 46, wherein “when the file was last modified” indicates metadata will be modified whenever file modified) to indicate that the single snapshot is mapped to the multiple snapshot rules (a new file corresponding with a snapshot of a virtual machine may be stored within the distributed file system 112 and metadata associated with the new file may be stored within the distributed metadata store 110, see Wong et al., Para. 46). As to claim 5, Chopra et al. as modified teaches adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises reusing a first snapshot, which was captured to satisfy a first snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, to satisfy a second snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, instead of capturing a second snapshot to satisfy the second snapshot rule (A forward incremental file may include a set of data representing changes that have occurred since an earlier point in time snapshot of a virtual machine, see Wong et al., Para. 35, each snapshot chain comprises a full image snapshot and one or more incremental snapshots, see Wong et al., Para. 69, wherein each “incremental snapshot” corresponding to “a snapshot rule”, so that “one or more incremental snapshots” corresponding to “multiple snapshot rules” reusing a single “a full image snapshot” in a “snapshot chain”). As to claim 7, Chopra et al. as modified teaches wherein adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises reusing a first snapshot, which was captured to satisfy a first snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, to satisfy a second snapshot rule in the set of snapshot rules, and discarding a second snapshot that was captured to satisfy the second snapshot rule (A forward incremental file may include a set of data representing changes that have occurred since an earlier point in time snapshot of a virtual machine, see Wong et al., Para. 35, each snapshot chain comprises a full image snapshot and one or more incremental snapshots, see Wong et al., Para. 69, wherein each “incremental snapshot” corresponding to a “snapshot rule”, so that “one or more incremental snapshots” corresponding to “multiple snapshot rules” reusing a single “a full image snapshot” in a “snapshot chain”. There is no “second snapshot” in the “snapshot chain”, so that “the second snapshot” is discarded). As to claim 8, Chopra et al. teaches the set of snapshot rules comprises a first snapshot rule and a second snapshot rule; the first set of snapshots of the dataset comprises a first snapshot corresponding to the first snapshot rule (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, full backups may be scheduled to be generated every 24 hours, every 7 days, see Chopra et al., Para. 26) and a second snapshot corresponding to the second snapshot rule (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26).
Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises a modified version of the first snapshot or the second snapshot mapped to both the first snapshot rule and the second snapshot rule.
However, Wong et al. teaches the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises a modified version of the first snapshot (The metadata information may include the name of a file, a size of the file, file permissions associated with the file, when the file was last modified, see Wong et al., Para. 46) or the second snapshot mapped to both the first snapshot rule and the second snapshot rule (The virtual machine search index 106 may include a list of files that have been stored using a virtual machine and a version history for each of the files in the list. Each version of a file may be mapped to the earliest point in time snapshot of the virtual machine that includes the version of the file or to a snapshot of the virtual machine that includes the version of the file (e.g., the latest point in time snapshot of the virtual machine that includes the version of the file), see Wong et al., Para. 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises a modified version of the first snapshot or the second snapshot mapped to both the first snapshot rule and the second snapshot rule, as taught by Wong et al., to reduce the amount of time to restore a database or other application (Wong et al., Abstract).
As to claim 9, Chopra et al. as modified teaches wherein the modified version of the first snapshot or the second snapshot comprises metadata modified to map the modified version of the first snapshot to both the first snapshot rule (The metadata information may include the name of a file, a size of the file, file permissions associated with the file, when the file was last modified, and file mapping information associated with an identification of the location of the file stored within a cluster of physical machines, see Wong et al., Para. 46, wherein “when the file was last modified” indicates metadata will be modified whenever file modified) and the second snapshot rule (a new file corresponding with a snapshot of a virtual machine may be stored within the distributed file system 112 and metadata associated with the new file may be stored within the distributed metadata store 110, see Wong et al., Para. 46).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966) in view of Wong et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0250046) as applied to claims 2-5, 7-9 and 19 above, and in further view of Verma et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,721,141).
As to claim 6, Chopra et al. as modified does not explicitly teach adjusting a retention period of the first snapshot to satisfy the second snapshot rule.
However, Verma et al. teaches adjusting a retention period of the first snapshot to satisfy the second snapshot rule (a policy might change on the retention side to indicate that they want to keep the last five snapshots and keep them for thirty days, see Verma et al., Col. 6, lines 15-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al. as modified, to have adjusting a retention period of the first snapshot to satisfy the second snapshot rule, as taught by Verma et al., to provide ease of management for customers, but also cost savings and improved resource utilization for providers (Verma et al., Col. 4, lines 22-24).
Claims 10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966) in view of Verma et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,721,141).
As to claim 10, Chopra et al. teaches the set of snapshot rules each defines a respective snapshot capture frequency (a full backup performed every 24 hours and an incremental backup performed every 15 minutes, see Chopra et al., Para. 60). However, Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach defining a respective snapshot retention period.
Verma et al. teaches defining a respective snapshot retention period (specify…the retention rules such as how long a snapshot is to be retained, see Verma et al., Col. 5, line 67 – Col. 6, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have defining a respective snapshot retention period, as taught by Verma et al., to provide ease of management for customers, but also cost savings and improved resource utilization for providers (Verma et al., Col. 4, lines 22-24).
As to claim 20, Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the set of snapshot rules includes a snapshot rule labeled to indicate the at least one flexibility is associated with the snapshot rule.
However, Verma et al. teaches wherein the set of snapshot rules includes a snapshot rule labeled (A corresponding policy for the tag can be stored to the policy data store 116, and can include information about when snapshots should be created or deleted for each resource having that tag applied, see Verma et al., Col. 3, lines 52-55) to indicate the at least one flexibility is associated with the snapshot rule (Based at least in part upon the policy, a schedule of actions to be performed for the tagged resource(s) can be determined 706 and/or updated. Updates can be determined when, for example, the policy changes or the resources that are tagged change, among other such options. As mentioned, a schedule for the actions can be generated, where the actions may be scheduled for all tagged resources at the same time, or may vary by resource. For example, if the policy includes an action to create a snapshot at midnight for each resource then the snapshot for each resource will be generated at approximately the same time, while a policy that indicates to delete the oldest snapshot for each resource every Saturday might enable those snapshots to be deleted any time it is convenient on a given Saturday, within any permissible guidelines on variance, see Verma et al., Col. 17, line 60- Col. 18, line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have wherein the set of snapshot rules includes a snapshot rule labeled to indicate the at least one flexibility is associated with the snapshot rule, as taught by Verma et al., to provide ease of management for customers, but also cost savings and improved resource utilization for providers (Verma et al., Col. 4, lines 22-24).
As to claim 21, Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach identifying the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the at least on flexibility comprising an implied flexibility identified based on a lack of an express indication of rigidity in the set of snapshot rules.
However, Verma et al. teaches identifying the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the at least on flexibility comprising an implied flexibility identified based on a lack of an express indication of rigidity in the set of snapshot rules (Based at least in part upon the policy, a schedule of actions to be performed for the tagged resource(s) can be determined 706 and/or updated. Updates can be determined when, for example, the policy changes or the resources that are tagged change, among other such options. As mentioned, a schedule for the actions can be generated, where the actions may be scheduled for all tagged resources at the same time, or may vary by resource. For example, if the policy includes an action to create a snapshot at midnight for each resource then the snapshot for each resource will be generated at approximately the same time, while a policy that indicates to delete the oldest snapshot for each resource every Saturday might enable those snapshots to be deleted any time it is convenient on a given Saturday, within any permissible guidelines on variance, see Verma et al., Col. 17, line 60- Col. 18, line 8. The reference does not have any “express indication of rigidity in the set of snapshot rules”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have identifying the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the at least on flexibility comprising an implied flexibility identified based on a lack of an express indication of rigidity in the set of snapshot rules, as taught by Verma et al., to provide ease of management for customers, but also cost savings and improved resource utilization for providers (Verma et al., Col. 4, lines 22-24).
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966) in view of Keller et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0294774).
Referring to claim 11, Chopra et al. teaches a computer-implemented method of a data storage system, the method comprising:
accessing, by a snapshot management system, data representative of a set of snapshot rules defining various separate snapshot requirements (The production agent may utilize backup policies to determine: (i) when to generate a backup and (ii) what type of backup to generate, see Chopra et al., Para. 17. The backups (160) may be of different types (e.g., full, differential, and/or incremental), see Chopra et al., Para. 21) that that collectively specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, full backups may be scheduled to be generated every 24 hours, every 7 days, see Chopra et al., Para. 26, the determination is determined based on the backup policies. If a backup has not been generated within a predetermined time period (e.g., 24 hours), the determination is made that a full backup is required, see Chopra et al., Para. 35);
analyzing, by the snapshot management system, the set of snapshot rules collectively to identify and use at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26) to determine a second set of snapshots of the dataset that satisfy the various separate snapshot requirements for the period of time, wherein the second set of snapshots is different from the first set of snapshots (The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour, see Chopra et al., Para. 26) in one or more ways configured to cause less resources to be used for at least one of generation, retention, or management of the second set of snapshots than would have been used to generate, retain, or manage the first set of snapshots (An incremental backup (e.g., 182, 184) may be a log of transactions (e.g., data written to the database) that occur during a period of time after the previous most recent backup (which may be a full backup or a differential backup) was generated. The incremental backup may also be referred to as a transactional log backup, see Chopra et al., Para. 24, wherein the log of transaction stores only transactions without dataset, so that the resource used for generation, retention or management is much less than generate a full backup of the dataset, wherein the dataset in reference is a database, “backup generation is triggered by the production agent following a backup policy that specifies when a backup of a database, see Chopra et al., Para. 33”); and
generating, by a snapshot management system, the second set of snapshots of the dataset (an incremental backup is generated storing data since the last backup, see Chopra et al., Para. 40).
However. Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset for a period of time.
Keller et al. teaches
specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset for a period of time (a given snapshot policy can specify a start time and interval for creating snapshots, how many copies to retain, how to name the snapshots, see Keller et al., Para. 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have specify a first set of snapshots of a dataset for a period of time, as taught by Keller et al., to have this method of pointer-based snapshots consumes less disk capacity than if the data set was repeatedly cloned (Keller et al., Para. 35).
As to claim 22, Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach the second set of snapshots of the dataset includes fewer snapshots than the first set of snapshots of dataset.
Keller et al. teaches the second set of snapshots of the dataset includes fewer snapshots than the first set of snapshots of dataset (allows users to generate snapshots of existing volumes with a limit on the number of snapshots that can be generated per volume (e.g., 31 snapshots per volume, 127 snapshots per volume, etc.), see Keller et al., Para. 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have the second set of snapshots of the dataset includes fewer snapshots than the first set of snapshots of dataset, as taught by Keller et al., to have this method of pointer-based snapshots consumes less disk capacity than if the data set was repeatedly cloned (Keller et al., Para. 35).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966) Keller et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0294774) as applied to claims 11, 20 and 21 above, and in further view of Wong et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0250046).
As to claim 12, Chopra et al. as modified does not explicitly teach generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset.
However, Wong et al. teaches generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules (The one or more processors configured to acquire one or more transaction logs for the database that include a set of data changes to the database between the first point in time and the second point in time and instantiate a database engine in response to detection that the server is unable to provide the second snapshot of the database at the second point in time, see Wong et al., Para. 98), the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset (the data associated with the full image Base2 may be equivalent to the forward incremental F2 in FIG. 2A patched over Fl and the full image Base in FIG. 2A, see Wong et al., Para. 61, generate the second snapshot of the database via application of the set of data changes to the first snapshot of the database using the database engine and terminate the database engine. The one or more processors configured to store the second snapshot of the database using the memory, see Wong et al., Para. 98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al. as modified, to have generating the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises adjusting, in a way allowed by the at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules, the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset, as taught by Wong et al., to reduce the amount of time to restore a database or other application (Wong et al., Abstract).
As to claim 13, Chopra et al. as modified teaches adjusting the first set of snapshots of the dataset to form the second set of snapshots of the dataset comprises using a single snapshot from the first set of snapshots to satisfy multiple snapshot rules in the set of snapshot rules (A forward incremental file may include a set of data representing changes that have occurred since an earlier point in time snapshot of a virtual machine, see Wong et al., Para. 35, each snapshot chain comprises a full image snapshot and one or more incremental snapshots, see Wong et al., Para. 69, wherein “each incremental snapshot” corresponding to “a snapshot rule”, so that “one or more incremental snapshots” corresponding to “multiple snapshot rules” using a single “a full image snapshot” in a “snapshot chain”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0241966) in view of Dwarampudi et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0349133).
As to claim 24, Chopra et al. does not explicitly teach
adjusting the set of rules to form an adjusted set of rules that collectively specify the
second set of snapshots of the dataset; and
using the adjusted set of rules to generate the second set of snapshots of the dataset.
However, Dwarampudi et al. teaches
adjusting the set of rules to form an adjusted set of rules that collectively specify the
second set of snapshots of the dataset; and using the adjusted set of rules to generate the second set of snapshots of the dataset (a change in backup schedule, see Dwarampudi et al., Para. 335. In addition to The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate, see Chopra et al., Para. 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chopra et al., to have adjusting the set of rules to form an adjusted set of rules that collectively specify the
second set of snapshots of the dataset; and using the adjusted set of rules to generate the second set of snapshots of the dataset, as taught by Dwarampudi et al., to have enhance scalability and improve system performance (Dwarampudi et al., Para. 80).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 7/23/2026 with respect to claims 1, 11 and 18 have been considered but they are not persuasive, or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s argues that “Chopra does not teach or suggest performance of a collective analysis of the backup policies used in the backup policy framework to identify and use a flexibility within the backup policies to determine an alternative set of backups that is different from the set of backups defined by the backup policies and that uses less resources than the set of backups defined by the backup policies”.
The Examiner does not agree, because Chopra et al., Para. 26, discloses “The backup policies may specify when to generate a backup as well as what type of backup to generate. The backup policies may include a schedule. For example, Incremental backups may be scheduled to be generated every 15 minutes, every hour”. The schedule is a contain of backup policies, so that the schedule is extracted based on analyzing backup policies, and there is no description of “analyze the set of snapshot rules collectively”. Therefore, the reference teaches limitation “analyze the set of snapshot rules collectively to identify and use determine, based on at least one flexibility in the various separate snapshot requirements defined by the set of snapshot rules to determine a second set of snapshots of the dataset that satisfy the various separate snapshot requirements, wherein the second set of snapshots is different from the first set of snapshots”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights