DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 has been entered.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 10,459,664. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 10,459,664
1. A method comprising:
receiving one or more references associated with a location, external to a target volume, of a metadata representation of source data to be written to the target volume and circulated among a plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time;
and causing the source data to be available at the target volume by virtually copying, using the one or more references, the metadata representation of the source data to the target volume via at least one intermediary volume of the plurality of intermediary volumes.
1. A method for a virtualized copy-by-reference, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first computer system, a request for reference information for source data within a source volume; responsive to the request for the reference information for the source data, copying a metadata representation of the source data from the source volume to an intermediary volume; providing, to the first computer system, the reference information, wherein the reference information indicates a storage location within the intermediary volume for the metadata representation of the source data;
receiving, from a second computer system, a request to write the source data to a target volume, and wherein the request to write the source data indicates the reference information; and
copying, using the reference information, the metadata representation of the source data from the intermediary volume to the target volume.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein, for respective metadata representations among a plurality of metadata representations, storage is circulated among the plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time.
This double patenting rejection is anticipatory, as all limitations of claim 1 are present in the claims of US 10,459,664. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 14 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Independent claim 20 is the computer program product corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 11,126,381. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 11,126,381
1. A method comprising:
receiving one or more references associated with a location, external to a target volume, of a metadata representation of source data to be written to the target volume and circulated among a plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time;
and causing the source data to be available at the target volume by virtually copying, using the one or more references, the metadata representation of the source data to the target volume via at least one intermediary volume of the plurality of intermediary volumes.
A method comprising:
providing, to a first system, reference information for source data within a source volume, wherein the reference information corresponds to a metadata representation of the source data; receiving, from a second system, a request to write the source data to a target volume, wherein the request to write the source data indicates the reference information; copying, using the reference information, the metadata representation of the source data to the target volume; and responsive to a write request directed at a particular data object of a plurality of data objects included in the source data, copying the particular data object from the source location in the source volume to a target location within the target volume, wherein copying the particular data object uses the metadata representation of the source data to identify a source location of the particular data object within the source volume.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to the request for the reference information for the source data, copying the metadata representation of the source data from the source volume to an intermediary volume, wherein the reference information indicates a storage location within the intermediary volume for the metadata representation of the source data.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein, for respective metadata representations among a plurality of metadata representations, storage is circulated among the plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time.
This double patenting rejection is anticipatory, as all limitations of claim 1 are present in the claims of US 11,126,381. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 14 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Independent claim 20 is the computer program product corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 11,656,804. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 11,656,804
1. A method comprising:
receiving one or more references associated with a location, external to a target volume, of a metadata representation of source data to be written to the target volume; and
making the source data available at the target volume by virtually copying, using the one or more references, the metadata representation of the source data via one or more intermediary volumes to the target volume, the one or more intermediary volumes being configured to store the metadata representation.
1. A method comprising:
providing reference information that includes one or more copy transactions for a metadata representation of source data, the source data being stored within a source volume; receiving a request to write the source data to a target volume, wherein the request to write the source data indicates the reference information; obtaining the metadata representation of the source data using the reference information; and
copying, using the reference information, the metadata representation of the source data to the target volume, including copying the metadata representation from the source volume to an intermediary volume and copying the metadata representation from the intermediary volume to the target volume.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the reference information comprises an intermediary volume identifier and offset for locating the metadata representation.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein each respective metadata representations among a plurality of metadata representations is circulated among the plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time.
This double patenting rejection is anticipatory, as all limitations of claim 1 are present in the claims of 11,656,804. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 14 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Independent claim 20 is the computer program product corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12,086,473. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 12,086,473
1. A method, comprising:
receiving one or more references associated with a location, external to a target volume, of a metadata representation of source data to be written to the target volume and circulated among a plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time;
and causing the source data to be available at the target volume by virtually copying, using the one or more references, the metadata representation of the source data to the target volume via at least one intermediary volume of the plurality of intermediary volumes.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request to write source data to a target volume, wherein the request to write the source data indicates reference information that indicates a storage location within an intermediary volume for the metadata representation of the source data;
obtaining a metadata representation of the source data using the reference information; and
copying, using the storage location within the intermediary volume that is indicated in the reference information, the metadata representation of the source data to the target volume.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the metadata representation is a snapshot of the source data, and wherein there is a single copy of the source data.
9. The method of claim 6, wherein each respective metadata representations among a plurality of metadata representations is circulated among the plurality of intermediary volumes according to a specified window of time.
This double patenting rejection is anticipatory, as all limitations of claim 1 are present in the claims of US 12,086,473. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 14 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Independent claim 20 is the computer program product corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
Applicant has incorporated subject matter indicated as allowable in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/26/2025, pages 15-16, into the independent claims. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner notes double patenting rejections remain as noted above.
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references include:
Grunwald et al (US 11,687,500) teaches Updating Metadata For A Synchronously Replicated Dataset.
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 14-25 have been rejected.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00- 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on (571) 272 - 5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights