DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-12, 14 and 16-20 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments on claim rejections 35 USC 103, filed 6/1/2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Isherwood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections 35 USC 103 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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Isherwood et al. (US 2016/0321338, hereinafter “Isherwood”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al. (US 2014/0136489, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Isherwood teaches A system comprising:
a first computing device of a first computing system able to communicate over a network with a second computing device of a second computing system, wherein data is replicated between the first computing system and the second computing system (Isherwood, [0068]: FIG. 5 shows general processing of synchronizing metadata before synchronizing the associated data content between two storage systems (storage system A and storage system B) to reduce collisions. Storage systems A and B are connected using an active/active replication link. Fig. 6: discussing about storage system A communicates over a network with storage system B), the first computing device configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the first computing device, from a client device associated with a first user, a first metadata change made to metadata of a first instance of an object stored at a storage location associated with the first computing device (Isherwood, [0068]: Namespace 1 is configured and replicated on both storage systems. In this case, storage system A receives a write request from client 1 to write an object, which is given the object path “/object1.” [0073]: FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating the general processing between storage system A and storage system B of synchronizing metadata first to “reserve” the object on storage system B to minimize conflicts. In the following description of the flowchart of FIG. 6, system A receives a write request from client 1 to write an object to namespace 1 (step 602).);
storing, by the first computing device, the first metadata change, and storing, in association with the first metadata change, a time of the first metadata change, and first user information related to the first user indicated to be a source of the first metadata change (Isherwood, [0073]: When system A receives a write request, the system commits the write to disk thereby storing the object locally (step 604) to a storage drive. The metadata is created for/object1 and stored in the database by the metadata manager.);
based on receiving replication of a second instance of the object from the second computing device of the second computing system, determining that a second metadata change was made to metadata of the second instance of the object at the second computing system based on the second computing system receiving the second metadata change from a client device associated with a second user, wherein the second instance of the object includes a time of the second metadata change and second user information stored by the second computing device in association with the second metadata change, the stored second user information related to the second user indicated to be a source of the second metadata change (Isherwood, [0067]: In an active/active topology, a client application on one system may write an object (e.g. “/object1”) to the same namespace as another client who also wrote “/object1.” [0069]: Namespace 1 on system B serves client 2, although it may also serve multiple clients and have multiple namespaces, same as system A. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5, system B also has a namespace referred to as namespace y, which client x is able to access. [0070]: On each storage system, the metadata manager manages a log of changes to objects. When a client writes an object to a storage system, the write is logged and the log is represented as a change time window. The change time window is a window of time, which indicates changes to all objects.);
resolving automatically, by the first computing device, a conflict between the first metadata change and the second metadata change based on comparing the time of the first metadata change with the time of the second metadata change, and further based on comparing the first user information stored by the first computing device with the second user information stored by the second computing device and replicated to the first computing device with the replication of the second instance of the object (Isherwood, [0091]: If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed.); and
based at least on resolving the conflict automatically, merging, by the first computing device, the first metadata change with the second metadata change into the metadata for the object (Isherwood, [0091]: On system A, the custom metadata is merged. If for example, system A had pieces of custom metadata for/object1 indicating a patients name and age and system B had pieces of custom metadata indicating a note about the patient, then on system A, the pieces of metadata would be merged to include the note. If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed.).
Assuming, arguendo, that Isherwood does not explicitly teach resolving automatically, by the first computing device, a conflict between metadata changes; and based at least on resolving the conflict automatically, merging, by the first computing device, the metadata changes.
However, Li teaches resolving automatically, by the first computing device, a conflict between metadata changes (Li, [0054]: On the other hand, if metadata conflicts are detected, the process continues to step 530 to resolve the conflicts. Resolution of conflicts may be automatically performed by the DM application, involve user interaction or a combination thereof.); and based at least on resolving the conflict automatically, merging, by the first computing device, the metadata changes (Li, [0064]: On the other hand, the process proceeds to step 655 if the user selected the automatic mode for resolving data conflicts. [0065]: At step 655, the automatic mode for data conflict resolution commences. The DM application determines if there are data conflicts at step 660. If there are data conflicts, the DM application proceeds to step 665. At step 665, the data files of D1 and D2 are merged and data binding is updated. [0093]: FIG. 9d shows the automatic data conflict resolution by the DM application. The resulting merged dashboard 900d and its corresponding merged metadata and data files 910d and 920d are shown.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood with the teaching about the automatic mode of Li because it would provide significant competitive advantages by eliminating manual, repetitive, and error-prone tasks in the data lifecycle. It leverages AI, machine learning, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to collect, transform, clean, and integrate data in real-time.
Regarding claim 4, Isherwood in view of Li teaches the operations further comprising replicating, by the first computing device, the first instance of the object, including the first metadata change, the time of the first metadata change, and the first user information, to the second computing device at the second computing system, wherein the second computing device at the second computing system is configured to resolve automatically the conflict between the first metadata change and the second metadata change based at least in part on comparing the time of the first metadata change with the time of the second metadata change, and further based on comparing the first user information with the second user information stored by the second computing device (Isherwood, [0091]: On system A, the custom metadata is merged. If for example, system A had pieces of custom metadata for/object1 indicating a patients name and age and system B had pieces of custom metadata indicating a note about the patient, then on system A, the pieces of metadata would be merged to include the note. If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed. Li, [0054]: On the other hand, if metadata conflicts are detected, the process continues to step 530 to resolve the conflicts. Resolution of conflicts may be automatically performed by the DM application, involve user interaction or a combination thereof.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood with the teaching about the automatic mode of Li because it would provide significant competitive advantages by eliminating manual, repetitive, and error-prone tasks in the data lifecycle. It leverages AI, machine learning, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to collect, transform, clean, and integrate data in real-time.
Regarding claim 5, Isherwood in view of Li teaches replicating, by the first computing device, the first instance of the object, including the time of the first metadata change and the first user information, to a third computing device at a third computing system; replicating, by the second computing device, the second instance of the object, including the time of the second metadata change and the second user information, to the third computing device at the third computing system (Isherwood, [0027]: In an archived storage system of object-based storage of fixed content data and associated metadata, the objects are replicated and stored across multiple storage systems, which may exist at different geographical locations. The storage systems are connected over networks and use links (e.g., replication links, which will be described later), which are configured associations between two or more storage systems.); and
wherein the third computing device at the third computing system is configured to resolve automatically the conflict between the first metadata change and the second metadata change based at least in part on comparing the time of the first metadata change with the time of the second metadata change, and further based on comparing the first user information stored by the first computing device with the second user information stored by the second computing device (Isherwood, [0091]: If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed. [0095]: At step 922, system B merges the custom metadata received for each object and sends an acknowledgment acknowledging successful reception of the data content batch (step 924). Li, [0054]: On the other hand, if metadata conflicts are detected, the process continues to step 530 to resolve the conflicts. Resolution of conflicts may be automatically performed by the DM application, involve user interaction or a combination thereof.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood with the teaching about the automatic mode of Li because it would provide significant competitive advantages by eliminating manual, repetitive, and error-prone tasks in the data lifecycle. It leverages AI, machine learning, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to collect, transform, clean, and integrate data in real-time.
Regarding claim 8, Isherwood in view of Li teaches wherein the operation of merging the first metadata change with the second metadata change into the metadata for the object further comprises: storing, by the first computing device, both the first metadata change and the second metadata change in the metadata of the first instance of the object stored by the first computing device (Isherwood, [0073]: When system A receives a write request, the system commits the write to disk thereby storing the object locally (step 604) to a storage drive. The metadata is created for/object1 and stored in the database by the metadata manager. [0079]: As mentioned above, the replication service builds a data batch using the metadata manager. System B receives and stores the batched data according to the objects in its local database at steps 624 and 626, respectively.).
Regarding claim 9, Isherwood in view of Li teaches receiving, by the first computing device, in replication of data received from the second computing device, a third instance of the object in which the first metadata change has been merged with the second metadata change (Isherwood, [0091]: On system A, the custom metadata is merged. If for example, system A had pieces of custom metadata for/object1 indicating a patients name and age and system B had pieces of custom metadata indicating a note about the patient, then on system A, the pieces of metadata would be merged to include the note. If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed.).
Regarding claim 10, Isherwood in view of Li teaches based at least on determining that the metadata of the third instance of the object includes the first metadata change and the second metadata change, deleting, from the metadata associated with the first instance of the object, the time associated with the first metadata change and user information associated with the first metadata change (Isherwood, [0091]: If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed.).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Braginsky also teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more programs executable by a first computing device of a first computing system to configure the first computing device to perform operations (Braginsky, [0024]: The memory 206 (which may comprise or include a computer readable storage medium) preferably includes an operating system 220, such as LINUX, having instructions for processing, accessing, storing, or searching data, etc.).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 3, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isherwood in view of Li and further in view of Papernik et al. (US 11,593,351, hereinafter “Papernik”).
Regarding claim 3, Isherwood in view of Li teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Isherwood in view of Li does not explicitly teach the further limitations as claimed.
Papernik teaches the first user information related to the first user and stored by the first computing device in association with the first metadata change indicates at least one of: a role of the first user with respect to the object (Papernik, column 20 line 61 – column 21 line 1: For example, continuing with the previous example, the first data control device 104A may send service instructions 128 to the second data control device 104B based on changes that were made to a user's role or title. In this example, the second data control device 104B may use a look-up table to determine the settings or permissions that are associated with the new role or title for the user.), or privileges of the first user with respect to the object (Papernik, column 10 lines 42-45: As an example, a validation rule 122 may indicate that a service request 300 is valid when the service request 300 identifies a user account 126 that is associated with at least a minimum number of account owners.), and
the second user information related to the second user and stored by the second computing device in association with the second metadata change indicates at least one of: a role of the second user with respect to the object, or privileges of the second user with respect to the object (Papernik, column 21 lines 30-39: In this case, the second data control device 104B sends the second set of service instructions to the provisioning service device 106 to update the user's account setting or permission based on the user's role or title change. This process allows different aspects of a user account 126 to be compartmentalized so they can be individually adjusted by their respective groups within the enterprise. This is in contrast to existing systems where a single group is responsible for making all of the changes to a user account 126.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood and Li with the teaching about the comparison of user information of Papernik because it allows for individual changes to be made without affecting other groups which improves the efficiency of the system (Papernik, column 21 lines 39-41).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isherwood in view of Li and further in view of Sedan et al. (US 2020/0409975, hereinafter “Sedan”).
Regarding claim 6, Isherwood in view of Li teaches the system of claim 5 as discussed above. Isherwood in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the first computing system, the second computing system and the third computing system are arranged in an active-active ring replication configuration.
Sedan teaches wherein the first computing system, the second computing system and the third computing system are arranged in an active-active ring replication configuration ([0051] and Fig. 1: Referring to FIG. 1, one embodiment of a ring replication system is shown in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. Ring replication system 100 includes a central ring of four electronic storage devices R1 (node 102), R2 (node 104), R3 (node 106), and R4 (node 108).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood and Li with the teaching about the ring replication of Sedan because the disclosed ring replication system also guarantees against data loss of stored data in the event of network or machine failure (Sedan, [0106]).
Claim 7, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isherwood in view of Li and further in view of Braginsky et al. (US 2009/0216815, hereinafter “Braginsky”).
Regarding claim 7, Isherwood in view of Li teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Isherwood in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the first user information, including a role or privileges of the first user, and the time of the first metadata change are stored with the metadata of the first instance of the object and are replicated with the metadata of the first instance of the object during replication of data to the second computing device at the second computing system.
Braginsky teaches wherein the first user information, including a role or privileges of the first user, and the time of the first metadata change are stored with the metadata of the first instance of the object and are replicated with the metadata of the first instance of the object during replication of data to the second computing device at the second computing system (Braginsky, [0031]: The metadata synchronization process may be performed separately for each share, or it may be performed for all shares to which a user has access rights. [0033]: Alternately, or in addition, it may store a timestamp in the server metadata entry to indicate the date and time of the last update made to the server metadata entry. [0034]: As noted above, each metadata entry includes a timestamp (synch_ts) indicating the last time the entry was changed on the server. The server identifies and sends to the client the requested server metadata entries (612).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood and Li with the teaching about the access rights of Braginsky because they are a strategic tool for security, efficiency, and compliance. They would protect sensitive data, establish clear responsibilities, and enable stable processes.
Regarding claim 11, Isherwood in view of Li teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Isherwood in view of Li also teaches wherein a third metadata change is received with the replication of the second instance of the object from the second computing device of the second computing system, the operations further comprising: resolving automatically the conflict between the first metadata change and the second metadata change based at least in part on comparing the time of the first metadata change with the time of the second metadata change to select a metadata change from the first metadata change and the second metadata change based on resolving the conflict (Isherwood, [0091]: If there's a conflict when merging the custom metadata, the data with the most recent change is kept and stored, while the other is removed. Li, [0054]: On the other hand, if metadata conflicts are detected, the process continues to step 530 to resolve the conflicts. Resolution of conflicts may be automatically performed by the DM application, involve user interaction or a combination thereof.).
Isherwood in view of Li does not explicitly teach determining that the third metadata change does not conflict with the selected metadata change; and merging the third metadata change and the selected metadata change into a single instance of the object at the first computing system.
Braginsky teaches determining that the third metadata change does not conflict with the selected metadata change; and merging the third metadata change and the selected metadata change into a single instance of the object at the first computing system (Braginsky, [0035]: When a received server metadata entry does not conflict with any corresponding client metadata entries (i.e., entries having the same filed ID and/or the same filename), the metadata changes in the server metadata entry are applied to the corresponding client metadata entry (614). Alternately, the received server metadata entry is used to overwrite the corresponding client metadata entry, if any.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the replication process of Isherwood and Li with the teaching about the synchronization process of Braginsky because it would ensure accurate, secure, compliant data and successful team and customer experiences. It assures congruence between each source of data.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Towle (US 2017/0005883) discloses that a ring replication strategy may guarantee a fixed number of replication channels independent of the number of distributed compute grid systems. In one embodiment, a ring replication strategy is only used for important state data, or state data that, in the event of a planned maintenance activity, needs to exist in whatever distributed compute grid system an active session is routed to. Whether a ring replication strategy is suitable may be based on the acceptability of end-user impact of important state data not existing ([0050]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights