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
This Office Action corresponds to application 18/826,953 which was filed on 9/6/2024 as a CIP of 17/487,935 filed 9/28/2021 claiming benefit of INDIA 202141034114 filed 7/29/2021.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 3/6/2026, Applicant amends claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19. No new claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-21 stand pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayal et al. (US11086545, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Dayal, in view of Haribhakti et al. (US2022/0207429, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Haribhakti, and Rachapudi et al. (US2021/0326218), hereinafter Rachapudi.
Regarding Claim 1:
Dayal teaches:
A method comprising: generating a snapshot object configured to store snapshot metadata of a workload at a primary snapshot storage service instance executing on a first computer node (Dayal, figures 1, 3, and 9, column 3 line 52 – column 4 line 4, note generating snapshot objects for snapshot metadata to store in an object store) ;
marking the snapshot object with an identifier (instance ID) of the primary snapshot storage service instance (first instance ID), wherein the first instance ID indicates exclusive access to perform lifecycle management of the snapshot object by the primary snapshot storage service instance (Dayal, figures 3 and 9, column 4 line 45 – column 5 line 16, column 9 lines 6-25, note the storage system that stores the snapshot is the owner of that snapshot with lifecycle management responsibilities);
storing the snapshot object on an object store (Dayal, figures 3 and 9, column 3 line 52 – column 4 line 4, note storing snapshot object in an object store);
instantiating an instance of a secondary snapshot storage service having a second instance ID and executing on a second computer node (Dayal, figure 1, column 4 lines 5-15, column 9 lines 6-25, note multiple storage systems have been instantiated; note each storage system may be assigned as owner of a snapshot object that is uploaded which is interpreted as a secondary snapshot storage service having a second instance ID);
in response to determining that the first instance ID of the snapshot object is different from the second instance ID, preventing lifecycle management access to the snapshot object (Dayal, figures 3 and 9, column 4 line 45 – column 5 line 16, column 5 line 57 – column 6 line 8, column 17 lines 17-50; note snapshot data that is uploaded by a particular storage to the object store may be obtained/downloaded/restored, e.g., read, by a different storage system; note lifecycle management operations may only be performed by the owner, e.g., preventing lifecycle management access by the secondary snapshot service instance to the snapshot object).
While Dayal teaches snapshot storage services instances with snapshot stores, Dayal doesn’t specifically teach preventing lifecycle management access by the secondary snapshot storage service instance to the snapshot object without communicating access privileges from the primary snapshot storage service to the secondary snapshot storage service. However, Haribhakti is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Haribhakti teaches:
in response to determining that the first instance ID of the snapshot object is different from the second instance ID, preventing lifecycle management access by the secondary snapshot storage service instance to the snapshot object (Haribhakti, [0003, 0201], note restricting access to objects in the object store based on parameters such as origin identifiers. When combined with the previously cited reference, this would be for the instance identifiers as taught by Dayal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Haribhakti because all references are directed to data management and because Haribhakti would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in object management by utilizing access controls that can be implemented more quickly for services as new requirements are developed (Haribhakti, [0087-0088]).
While Dayal as modified teaches snapshot storage services instances with snapshot stores, Dayal as modified doesn’t specifically teach without communicating access privileges from the primary snapshot storage service to the secondary snapshot storage service. However, Rachapudi is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Rachapudi teaches:
in response to determining that the first instance ID of the snapshot object is different from the second instance ID, preventing lifecycle management access by the secondary snapshot storage service instance to the snapshot object without communicating access privileges from the primary snapshot storage service to the secondary snapshot storage service (Rachapudi, figures 1C-1D, [0058], note comparing the first instance ID of a snapshot object with a second instance ID of a service instance and preventing operations, e.g., lifecycle management access, if the IDs are different).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Rachapudi because all references are directed to data management and because Rachapudi would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in object management to improve performance and efficiency of the systems by utilizing tenant IDs to execute operations (Rachapudi, [0006, 0068]).
Regarding Claim 2:
Dayal shows the method as disclosed above;
Dayal further teaches:
wherein marking the snapshot object comprises recording metadata associated with the snapshot object storing the instance ID associated with the snapshot object (Dayal, figures 1 and 3, column 4 line 45 – column 5 line 16, note storing metadata associated with the snapshot to the object store; note the metadata is associated with the instance ID associated with the snapshot object).
Regarding Claim 3:
Dayal shows the method as disclosed above;
Dayal further teaches:
wherein the lifecycle management includes garbage collection (Dayal, figure 3, column 9 lines 6-25, column 23 lines 2-28, note reclamation engine is configured to reclaim snapshot data, e.g. garbage collection).
Regarding Claim 5:
Dayal shows the method as disclosed above;
Dayal further teaches:
merging the primary snapshot storage service instance into the secondary snapshot storage service instance (Dayal, figure 1, column 17 lines 34-50, note adoption; note delegating object ownership to another storage system, which is interpreted as merging the primary snapshot storage service into the secondary snapshot storage service since the secondary storage system obtains ownership of the objects that used to be owned by the primary storage system); and
re-marking snapshot objects owned by the primary snapshot storage service instance with a third instance ID of the secondary snapshot storage service instance, such that the secondary snapshot storage service instance has ownership of the snapshot objects of the primary snapshot storage service instance (Dayal, figure 1, column 17 lines 34-50, note adoption; note delegating object ownership to another storage system).
Regarding Claim 6:
Dayal shows the method as disclosed above;
Dayal further teaches:
storing the snapshot object in one or more shared buckets among snapshot storage service instances (Dayal, column 4 line 45 – column 5 line 50, column 5 line 57 – column 6 line 8, column 20 lines 32-43, note snapshot data that is uploaded by a particular storage to the object store may be obtained/downloaded/restored by a different storage system, which is interpreted as shared objects stored in one or more shared buckets); and
accessing the snapshot object by each snapshot storage service instance in a contention-free manner (Dayal, column 4 line 45 – column 5 line 50, column 5 line 57 – column 6 line 8, column 20 lines 32-43, note snapshot data that is uploaded by a particular storage to the object store may be obtained/downloaded/restored by a different storage system, which is interpreted as shared objects stored in one or more shared buckets).
Regarding Claim 7:
Dayal shows the method as disclosed above;
Dayal further teaches:
wherein the snapshot object is associated with a metadata object and one or more leaf node objects, and wherein the metadata object is exclusively owned by the first snapshot storage service instance and the leaf node objects are shared among the storage service instances (Dayal, figures 3 and 9, column 3 line 52 – column 4 line 4, column 4 line 45 – column 5 line 16, column 7 lines 13-52, note snapshot object are associated with a metadata object and a set of data stored in storage; note the metadata objects may include a b-tree which comprise leaf nodes; note the storage system that stores the snapshot is the owner of that snapshot).
Claim 8 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 9 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2 respectively, except claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 2.
Claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3 respectively, except claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 3.
Claim 12 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6 respectively, except claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 6.
Claim 14 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 7 respectively, except claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 7.
Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 15 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2 respectively, except claim 16 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 2.
Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3 respectively, except claim 17 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 3.
Claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 19 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6 respectively, except claim 20 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 6.
Claim 21 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 7 respectively, except claim 21 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayal in view of Haribhakti, Rachapudi, and Grunwald et al. (US11036677, previously cited in ‘892), hereinafter Grunwald.
Regarding Claim 4:
Dayal shows the method as disclosed above;
Dayal further teaches:
wherein the snapshot storage service instances are created and destroyed on-demand (Dayal, figure 1, column 4 lines 5-15, column 17 lines 34-50, note cluster of storage systems is managed by a cluster management server; note three storage systems is only an example and may contain one or more storage systems, e.g., storage services created on-demand; note storage system may be lost or failed, e.g., destroyed on-demand).
While Dayal teaches snapshot storage services instances may be created or destroyed, Dayal doesn’t specifically state it is done “on-demand”. However, Grunwald is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Grunwald teaches:
wherein the snapshot storage service instances are created and destroyed on-demand (Grunwald, figure 4, column 45 lines 43-60, column 46 lines 10-38, column 47 line 39 – column 48 line 3, note storage system may be added and removed from pods used for snapshots. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the cluster management server as taught by Dayal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Grunwald because all references are directed to data management and because Grunwald would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in snapshot management by utilizing units of administration to manage multiple storage systems (Grunwald column 46 lines 10-38).
Claim 11 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4 respectively, except claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note memory and processor) while claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 4.
Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4 respectively, except claim 18 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processors (Dayal, claim 1, note processor) while claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 4.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/JOHN J MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2152 3/18/2026
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152