Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Art Rejection
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16-22, 26, 28-29, 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0373439, in view of Raduchel, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0161439 and Kumar, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2016/0196218.
Per claim 1, Xu discloses a computer implemented method for distributed data storage of a file across a plurality of data storage nodes comprising the steps to be performed by a user device and a remote (public cloud) server:
a) dividing the file into a plurality of chunks by the user device, wherein the chunks can be combined in a reassembly sequence to recreate the file (see par 0083, 0086);
b) sending each respective chunk to the remote server (see par 0086);
c) receiving from the remote server an acknowledgement for each sent chunk (see par 0089); and
d) storing file retrieval data in an independent node verification network ("INVN"), the file retrieval data comprising the chunk retrieval data item for each respective chunk and reassembly data sufficient to determine the reassembly sequence (see par 0042);
e) receiving by the remote server a respective chunk from the user device (see par 0086);
f) sending the received chunk to a particular data storage node in the plurality of data storage nodes (see par 0089);
g) sending to the user device, after successful storage of the received chunk at the particular data storage node, the acknowledgement (see par 0089).
Xu does not teach that the acknowledgement comprises address for the received chunk at the particular data storage node of the remote server. However, Raduchel discloses a method for sending data to a remote server for storage wherein in response to a request for storing data the remote server will assign particular storage location/node at the server and sends back to the assigned location to the client for subsequent access (see Raduchel, par 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu with Raduchel teaching because data storage at the remote server would have been handled more efficiently when a storage allocation is determined by the storage server.
Xu also does not explicitly teach storing the file retrieval data (file map) in an independent node verification network. However, such as of an independent sever for storing the file/backup map in known in the art as disclosed by Kumar (see Kumar, par 0030, 0034).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an independent sever in Xu for storing the file map because it would have provided further protection to the file.
Per claim 2, Raduchel teaches assigning the received chuck to a respective one of the plurality of data storage nodes and sending the received chuck to the assigned data storage node, wherein the chuck retrieval data item comprises an identifier (e.g., address) for uniquely mapping to the particular data storage node (see par 0083).
Per claims 8-9, Xu teaches encrypting the chunks before sending the chunks to the remote server and saving the file retrieval data (see par 0035, 0042).
Per claims 10-11, Kumar teaches sending the chunks to the remote server an order that is different from the reassembly sequence, e.g., randomly (see par 0029).
Per claim 12, Xu teaches that the data storage nodes comprise storage available at the remote server and a storage node that is not from the remote server, e.g., local node, wherein selecting a storage node in accordance with user preference associated with the user or user ID (see par 0026).
Per claim 14, Kumar teaches obtaining the file retrieval data from the independent server 910 (see par 0034). Kumar does not explicitly teach generating an address for obtaining the file retrieval data from the independent server.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize such address generation in practicing Xu because it would have enabled retrieving the map from the independent server.
Per claims 16-17, Xu teaches:
a) obtaining the file retrieval data for the file, and extracting a plurality of chunks retrieval data items and the reassembly data, i.e., metadata (see par 0097);
b) for each respective chunk retrieval data items, retrieving chunks from the data storage node (see par 0098);
c) determining the reassembly sequence and combining the retrieved data chunks in accordance with the reassembly sequence to recreate and saving the file in a storage of the user device (see par 0049).
It should also be noted that the file retrieval data can be obtained from the independent server (see Kumar, par 0034).
Per claim 18, Xu teaches that the remote server in response to receiving respective chunk retrieval data item from the user device, retrieving a respective chunk from the data storage node identified by the received respective chunk retrieval data item, and sending the respective chunk to the user device (see par 0098).
Claims 19-22, 26, 28-29, 31-32 and 34-35 are similar in scope as that of claims 1-2, 8-12, 14 and 16-18 and hence are rejected for the same rationale set forth for claims 1-2, 8-12, 14 and 16-18.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 4, 6, 23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
1/12/26
Prosecution Insights