CTNF 18/894,310 CTNF 99365 NON-FINAL ACTION Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 11-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 9396205) in view of Bednash (US 20240045964) and Wilde (US 8756197) . Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: in response to a determination that a first file server is to be cloned to a second file server, determining changed files between the first file server and the second file server (“detects file changes and describes the changes using names” column 10 line 11) and determining configuration changes, applicable to the first file server, relative to a prior cloning of the first file server; (“During the next update after a configuration change, the source and the destination therefore co-ordinate to detect that the namespace has changed and then rebuild the data warehouse on the destination.” Column 19 lines 57-60); in response to determining the changed files, applying the first changes corresponding to the changed files to the second file server; and in response to determining the configuration changes, applying the configuration changes to the second file server (“The main functions of the destination are to update the data warehouse and apply file system changes. The following discussion examines the two above mentioned scenarios and how they can be handled.” Column 15 lines 44-47). before applying first changes corresponding to the changed files and the configuration changes to the second file server, generating a snapshot of the second file server; (“The incremental changes are captured in the snapshot tagged as snap_2. Now there are two common snapshots between the source and the destination, snap_1 and snap_2.” Column 14 lines 55-58). Lewis does not teach wherein the configuration changes comprise lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) configuration changes . Bednash teaches wherein the configuration changes comprise lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) configuration changes (“Referring now to FIG. 5, the BSP system 100 is configured to provide privileged access management. The BSP system 100 integrates with Active Directory/LDAP to enable data owners to review access control permissions… Changes to access control settings can be logged for review and compliance purposes.” ¶62). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the file server cloning methods of Lewis with the logging of LDAP configuration changes as taught by Bednash. Access control settings such as LDAP configurations are file changes that are valuable information to protect files, such as in the event of a cyberattack (Bednash ¶22). Lewis and Bednash do not teach wherein second changes to a configuration on the second file server are retained and merged with the configuration changes . Wilde teaches wherein second changes to a configuration on the second file server are retained and merged with the configuration changes (“Backup application 150 stores delta file 158 as part of backup image 152b. In some embodiments, access to delta file 158 is provided to application 128 in order to allow application 128 to confirm that a backup image is a consistent view. Virtual view 184 is then discarded. In some embodiments, a point in time represented by the consistent view can be shifted by applying from a second delta file (not shown) to backup base image 154 a second set of changes representing a second subset of log files…. This virtual view 184 is created by merging or otherwise applying to backup base image 154 delta file 158 according to linked lists 156.” Column 9 lines 33-42, 48-52). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the server backup methods using LDAP taught by Lewis and Bednash with the merging of a second group of changes to a second server as described by Wilde. This would allow for the backup files to be created while only needing a subset of files instead of all files (Wilde column 9 lines 52-57). Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches wherein the determination that the first file server is to be cloned to the second file server comprises a determination that the first file server is to be identically cloned to the second file server (“One common application of storage controllers is data replication. Mirroring is a form of replication, in which a given data set at a source is replicated “exactly” (at least insofar as its users can see) at a destination,” column 1 lines 36-40); and wherein the applying of the configuration changes to the second file server comprises replacing a second configuration of the second file server with a first configuration of the first file server (“During replication to the destination 3B, the source 3A sends the data with names attached in one stream, the “data stream” 72, and sends file updates referring to the names in a second stream, the “metadata stream” 73. For example, the metadata stream 73 indicates that FBN1 needs to be updated using name X, FBN2 using name Y and FBN3 using name Z” column 9 lines 20-25). Regarding claim 3, Lewis teaches wherein the determination that the first file server is to be cloned to the second file server comprises a determination that the first file server is to be non-identically cloned to the second file server (“When replicating a data set, such as a volume, the replica usually does not need to be an exact copy of the original;” column 1 lines 48-49); and wherein the applying of the configuration changes to the second file server comprises merging a second configuration of the second file server with a first configuration of the first file server (“The source names S1 and S2 are combined into extent DE1. S1 is represented by the first part of DE1, and S2 is represented by the second part of DE1.” Column 17 lines 17-20). Regarding claim 4, Lewis teaches wherein the configuration changes further comprise server message block configuration changes, network file system configuration changes, or share or export mapping configuration changes (“Further, it can be seen that data extent 267 is now shared by both files. In a more complicated example, data extents can be coalesced so as to be shared between volumes or other types of logical containers” column 8 lines 24-27). Claim 4 as written needs only one of the listed elements to be taught. Regarding claim 11, Lewis teaches A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: in response to a determination that a first network attached storage server is to be copied to a second network attached storage server, determining changed files between the first network attached storage server and the second network attached storage server, (“detects file changes and describes the changes using names” column 10 line 11, “Some storage controllers are designed to service file-level requests from hosts, as is commonly the case with file servers used in network attached storage (NAS) environments.” Column 1 lines 19-23 ) and determining configuration changes, applicable to the first network attached storage server, relative to a prior copying of the first network attached storage server; (“During the next update after a configuration change, the source and the destination therefore co-ordinate to detect that the namespace has changed and then rebuild the data warehouse on the destination.” Column 19 lines 57-60); in response to determining the changed files, applying changes corresponding to the changed files to the second network attached storage server; and in response to determining the configuration changes, applying the first configuration changes to the second network attached storage server. (“The main functions of the destination are to update the data warehouse and apply file system changes. The following discussion examines the two above mentioned scenarios and how they can be handled.” Column 15 lines 44-47); before applying first changes corresponding to the changed files and the configuration changes to the second file server, generating a snapshot of the second file server; (“The incremental changes are captured in the snapshot tagged as snap_2. Now there are two common snapshots between the source and the destination, snap_1 and snap_2.” Column 14 lines 55-58). Bednash teaches wherein the configuration changes comprise lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) configuration changes (“Referring now to FIG. 5, the BSP system 100 is configured to provide privileged access management. The BSP system 100 integrates with Active Directory/LDAP to enable data owners to review access control permissions… Changes to access control settings can be logged for review and compliance purposes.” ¶62). Wilde teaches wherein second changes to a configuration on the second file server are retained and merged with the configuration changes (“Backup application 150 stores delta file 158 as part of backup image 152b. In some embodiments, access to delta file 158 is provided to application 128 in order to allow application 128 to confirm that a backup image is a consistent view. Virtual view 184 is then discarded. In some embodiments, a point in time represented by the consistent view can be shifted by applying from a second delta file (not shown) to backup base image 154 a second set of changes representing a second subset of log files…. This virtual view 184 is created by merging or otherwise applying to backup base image 154 delta file 158 according to linked lists 156.” Column 9 lines 33-42, 48-52) Regarding claim 12, Lewis teaches wherein the determination that the first network attached storage server is to be copied to the second network attached storage server comprises a determination that the first network attached storage server is to be identically copied to the second network attached storage server (“One common application of storage controllers is data replication. Mirroring is a form of replication, in which a given data set at a source is replicated “exactly” (at least insofar as its users can see) at a destination,” column 1 lines 36-40); and wherein the applying of the configuration changes to the second network attached storage server comprises replacing a second configuration of the second network attached storage server with a first configuration of the first network attached storage server. (“During replication to the destination 3B, the source 3A sends the data with names attached in one stream, the “data stream” 72, and sends file updates referring to the names in a second stream, the “metadata stream” 73. For example, the metadata stream 73 indicates that FBN1 needs to be updated using name X, FBN2 using name Y and FBN3 using name Z” column 9 lines 20-25). Regarding claim 13, Lewis teaches wherein the determination that the first network attached storage server is to be copied to the second network attached storage server comprises a determination that the first network attached storage server is to be non-identically copied to the second network attached storage server, (“When replicating a data set, such as a volume, the replica usually does not need to be an exact copy of the original;” column 1 lines 48-49); and wherein the applying of the configuration changes to the second network attached storage server comprises merging a second configuration of the second network attached storage server with a first configuration of the first network attached storage server. (“The source names S1 and S2 are combined into extent DE1. S1 is represented by the first part of DE1, and S2 is represented by the second part of DE1.” Column 17 lines 17-20). Regarding claim 14, Lewis teaches wherein the configuration changes further comprise at least one server message block configuration changes, network file system configuration changes, or share or export mapping configuration changes. (“Further, it can be seen that data extent 267 is now shared by both files. In a more complicated example, data extents can be coalesced so as to be shared between volumes or other types of logical containers” column 8 lines 24-27). Regarding claim 16, it recites the same limitations as claim 1 as a method and is rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Wilde and Bednash in view of Bono (US 10498821) . Regarding claim 5, Lewis and Bednash teach the system of claim 1 . They do not teach wherein the second file server comprises a cloned version of the first file server . Bono teaches wherein the second file server comprises a cloned version of the first file server (“The clone NAS server is subsequently operated in the NAS cluster independently of the source NAS server, the clone NAS serving its file systems backed by the set of cloned LUNs hosted by the block storage” column 2 lines 10-14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the file and configuration change copying system of Lewis with the cloning of entire file servers as taught by Bono. This would remove the concern for how many file systems are part of the source server (Bono, column 1 lines 33-40). Regarding claim 15, Bono teaches wherein the second network attached storage server comprises an exact copy of the first network attached storage server. (“The clone NAS server is subsequently operated in the NAS cluster independently of the source NAS server, the clone NAS serving its file systems backed by the set of cloned LUNs hosted by the block storage” column 2 lines 10-14) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 7, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Wilde and Bednash in view of Kohli (US 20210182162) . Regarding claim 6, Lewis and Bednash teach The system of claim 1, They do not teach wherein the second file server is restored from the snapshot in response to a determination that the applying of the changes corresponding to the changed files to the second file server or the applying of the configuration changes to the second file server resulted in an error . Kohli teaches wherein the second file server is restored from the snapshot in response to a determination that the applying of the changes corresponding to the changed files to the second file server or the applying of the configuration changes to the second file server resulted in an error (“the configuration files and the corresponding configuration parameters are validated and automated based on source and target system. If during status check (254) there is any error during validation or running post clone steps, the database clone steps (252) are performed again.” ¶34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the data backup copying system of Lewis with the performing of cloning steps in response to errors as taught by Kohli. Correcting such errors would prevent a loss of time and productivity caused by incorrectly cloned data (Kohli ¶5). Regarding claim 7, Lewis teaches wherein the error comprises a complete failure of the second file server (“This check can be done periodically, for example, or at specified times, or in response to one or more defined events (a volume move, flip resynch, storage controller failure, etc.).” column 19, lines 65-68) Regarding claim 17, Kohli teaches further comprising: generating, by the system, a snapshot of the second file server, wherein the second file server is restored from the snapshot in response to a determination that the applying of the changes corresponding to the changed files to the second file server or the applying of the configuration changes to the second file server resulted in an error. (“the configuration files and the corresponding configuration parameters are validated and automated based on source and target system. If during status check (254) there is any error during validation or running post clone steps, the database clone steps (252) are performed again.” ¶34). Regarding claim 18, Kohli teaches wherein the error comprises a partial failure of the second file server. (“In an alternative embodiment, the refresh script may create a savepoint and show an error, indicating a memory space deficit to perform the cloning/restore.” ¶30) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Wilde and Bednash in view of Jain (US 20180121453) . Regarding claim 8, Lewis and Bednash teach the system of claim 1 . They do not teach wherein the configuration changes comprise client access configuration changes . Jain teaches wherein the configuration changes comprise client access configuration changes. (“To “activate” a snapshot, a data management application can change a permission(s) of the defined data collection of a snapshot to permit writing and/or expose the data collection for client access” ¶20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the data backup copying system of Lewis with the changing of client access configurations as taught by Jain. Client access permissions are just another example of server configuration data, and would allow for clients to access protected restore points when data is lost (Jain ¶20). Regarding claim 19 Jain teaches wherein the configuration changes comprise client access configuration changes. (“To “activate” a snapshot, a data management application can change a permission(s) of the defined data collection of a snapshot to permit writing and/or expose the data collection for client access” ¶20) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Wilde and Bednash in view of Adams (US 20180341593) . Regarding claim 9, Lewis and Bednash teach the system of claim 1, They do not teach wherein the second file server comprises multiple copies from the first file server. Adams teaches wherein the second file server comprises multiple copies from the first file server (“In another example, the image repository 342 can be a master repository that includes a set of copies of the golden server images” ¶22”) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the data backup copying system of Lewis with the use of multiple server copies as taught by Adams. This could be used to restore a set of server blades (Adams ¶26). Regarding claim 10, Adams teaches wherein the second file server comprises an immutable golden copy of the first file server (“for example, the image repository 342 can be a system repository that includes a number golden server images of the set of server blades 334.” ¶22). Regarding claim 20, Adams teaches wherein the second file server comprises at least two copies of the first file server (“In another example, the image repository 342 can be a master repository that includes a set of copies of the golden server images.” ¶22). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA whose telephone number is (703)756-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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. /SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 2 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 3 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 4 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 5 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 6 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 7 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 8 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 9 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 10 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 11 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 12 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 13 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 14 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/894,310 Page 15 Art Unit: 2113
Prosecution Insights