Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/905,762, filed on 10/3/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a CON of 17/513,580 filed on 10/28/2021 is now US PAT 12,135,686
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18,20-21 are pending in this application, and claim 5,12,19 are missing
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 7/29/2026
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/3/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, PTO-1449 mailed on 4/23/2026
Claim 5,12,19 are missing , and it appears that claims either misnumbered or canceled
Examiner assumed and treated claim 5,12,19 cancelled in the present office action
35 USC § 101
In view of applicant’s amendment, remarks (page 9-16), the rejection under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18,20-21 of US Application No. 18/905,762 (as amended 7/29/2026)are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 18/905,762
US Patent No. 12,135,686
Claim 1,8,15, A computer-implemented method for storing a snapshot of block-level changes in a data volume for an application that is stored by at least one physical storage device within a cluster and restoring the snapshot to the data volume using a file system-level backup tool that is configured to interpret file system-level changes but is not configured to interpret the block-level changes, the computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing one or more application programming interfaces of the data volume that are configured to detect and output the block-level changes to the data volume, wherein accessing the one or more application programming interfaces extracts the block-level changes without the file system-level backup tool accessing an operating system of the data volume, mounting a disk of the data volume to the operating system, and accessing a file system of the data volume through the mounted disk
storing individual ones of the block-level changes in corresponding ones of the plurality of subdirectories; so that the block-level changes are formatted as file system-level changes interpretable by the file system-level backup tool;
creating a manifest associated with the root directory;;
identifying the snapshot to the file system-level backup tool;
instructing the file system-level backup tool to store the snapshot by:
storing the file system snapshot representation in content-addressable object storage; and storing the manifest in a manifest storage;
receiving the snapshot from the file system-level backup tool as the file system snapshot representation by receiving the file system therefrom;
generating, from the file system snapshot representation, a block map of the data volume by mapping the block-level changes from the corresponding ones of the plurality of subdirectories to corresponding blocks in a block structure of the data volume; and
restoring the snapshot to the data volume by writing the block-level changes to the data volume based on the block map.
Claim 2,9,16
Claim 3,10,17
Claim 4,11,18,
Claim 7,14,20
Claim 1,713, A computer-implemented method for storing a snapshot of block-level changes in a data volume for an application that is stored by at least one physical storage device within a cluster and restoring the snapshot to the data volume using a file system-level backup tool that is able to interpret file system-level changes but is unable to interpret the block-level changes, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving the block-level changes from the data volume stored in the application in the cluster;
creating a file system for the snapshot, wherein the file system comprises a root directory having a plurality of subdirectories;
storing each of the block-level changes in the data volume in a corresponding one of the subdirectories,
wherein storing each of the block-level changes in the data volume in a corresponding one of the subdirectories comprises assigning each of the respective subdirectories a respective label for a respective block-level change stored in the respective subdirectory, wherein the respective label corresponds to a respective location in the data volume where the respective block-level change originated;
creating a manifest for identifying the snapshot in the file system-level backup tool, wherein the manifest is associated with the root directory;
instructing the file system-level backup tool to store the snapshot by:
storing the file system in content-addressable object storage; and
storing the manifest in a manifest storage;
receiving the snapshot from the file system-level backup tool by receiving the file system therefrom;
mapping the block-level changes from the respective subdirectories of the file system into a block map of the data volume; and
restoring the snapshot to the data volume based on the block map.
Claim 2,8,14
Claim 3,9,15
Claim 4,10,16,
Claim 6, 12,17
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,686 to arrive at the claims 1-4,6-11,13-18,20-21 of the instant application 18/905,762 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1,8,15 instant application 18/905,762 storing individual ones of the block-level changes in corresponding ones of the plurality of subdirectories; so that the block-level changes are formatted as file system-level changes interpretable by the file system-level backup tool while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,686, s storing each of the block-level changes in the data volume in a corresponding one of the subdirectories,
wherein storing each of the block-level changes in the data volume in a corresponding one of the subdirectories comprises assigning each of the respective subdirectories a respective label for a respective block-level change stored in the respective subdirectory, wherein the respective label corresponds to a respective location in the data volume where the respective block-level change originated;
limitation(s) is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 18/905,762 claim 1,8,15, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,8,15 are broader
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18,20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended or a terminal disclaimer filed to overcome the rejection(s) under nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation which is consistence with the Applicant’s specification. In view of applicant’s amendment to the claims, remarks filed on 7/29/2026, the prior art of Kumar et al.,, US Pub. No. 2021/0096961, Fachan et al, US Pub. No. 2008/0059541 do not disclose, make obvious or otherwise suggest the structure of applicant’s
“accessing one or more application programming interfaces of the data volume that are configured to detect and output the block-level changes to the data volume, wherein accessing the one or more application programming interfaces extracts the block-level changes without the file system-level backup tool accessing an operating system of the data volume, mounting a disk of the data volume to the operating system, and accessing a file system of the data volume through the mounted disk”, in claim 1,8,15
These features, together with the other limitations of the independent claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. The dependent claims 2-4,6-7,9-11,13-14,16-18,20-21 being definite, enabled by the specification, and further limiting to the independent claims are also allowable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights