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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “One or more processing resources” causing “the data storage system” to “maintain a CBMAP storing mappings…”, and “selectively issuing a request…” in claims 8, 14; “determining the particular CBN…”, and “avoiding issuing the request…” in claims 9, 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. “One or more processing resources” will be interpreted as defined in the paragraphs [0065], [0107] of the specification, and the “data processing system will be interpreted as defined in the Fig. 9 and the paragraphs [0065], [0107], [0109] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the reference" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the reference" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reference" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application listed above are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent noted above. While the claims are not identical, the independent claims of the patent recites avoiding storing a duplicate file data block responsive to determining the particular CBN is present. The examiner believes such limitation anticipates selectively issuing a request for a particular portion of data of the set of data associated with a particular CBN associated with the object store based on existence or nonexistence of a valid mapping of the particular CBN as recited in the independent claims of the instant application. See table below for the comparison of some of the claims from the instant application and the patent.
Instant Application:
Pat. 12,135,616
1. A method comprising: during a data restoration operation of a set of data from an object store of a cloud, maintaining, by a data storage system, a cloud block map (CBMAP) storing mappings of a plurality of cloud block numbers (CBNs) associated with the object store to a corresponding plurality of block numbers of a volume of the data storage system, wherein the CBMAP includes a mapping of a given CBN of the plurality of CBNs to a given block number of the corresponding plurality of block numbers when a portion of data of the set of data associated with the given block number has previously been retrieved from the object store and stored within a given file data block on the volume identified by the given block number; and
1. A method of restoring data from an object store of a cloud to a volume of a data storage system, the method comprising: maintaining, by the data storage system, a cloud block map (CBMAP) having entries that each map a cloud block number (CBN) of a plurality of CBNs to a corresponding block number of the volume, wherein a portion of the data associated with a given CBN of the plurality of CBNs was previously retrieved from the object store and stored within a given file data block of the volume, and wherein the given file data block is identified by the corresponding block number; and
preserving storage efficiency, by the data storage system, as part of performing the data restoration operation by selectively issuing a request for a particular portion of data of the set of data associated with a particular CBN associated with the object store based on existence or nonexistence of a valid mapping of the particular CBN to a particular block number of the corresponding plurality of block numbers.
preserving storage efficiency by the data storage system by: prior to issuing a request for a particular portion of the data associated with a particular CBN from the object store, determining the particular CBN is present within an entry of the CBMAP that is valid; and responsive to the determination, avoiding storing a duplicate file data block on the volume containing the particular portion of the data by instead storing a reference to the given file data block identified by the block number corresponding to the particular CBN.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein said selectively issuing a request comprises: prior to issuing the request, determining the particular CBN is present within an entry of the CBMAP that is valid; and after determining the particular CBN is present, avoiding issuing the request and avoiding storing a duplicate file data block on the volume containing the particular portion of the data by storing a reference to a file data block of the volume identified by a block number of the corresponding plurality of block numbers to which the particular CBN maps.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the reference comprises a volume block number (VBN) or a VBN pair including a virtual volume block number (VVBN) and a physical volume block number (PVBN) of the file data block and wherein the reference is stored within an indirect node (inode) file data block or a file indirect block of a file currently being restored as part of the data restoration operation.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the reference comprises a volume block number (VBN) or a VBN pair including a virtual volume block number (VVBN) and a physical volume block number (PVBN) of the given file data block and wherein the reference is stored within an inode file data block or a file indirect block of a file currently being restored.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a file system of the data storage system comprises a multi-phase file system or a write anywhere file system.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the file system comprises a multi-phase file system or a write anywhere file system.
Claims 5-7, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,616 in view of George et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0,285,410 A1) [hereafter George]. As per claims 5-7, the claims of the patent do not specifically teach the set of data comprises an entire volume, one or more files or a directory. However, George in an analogous art teaches creating a snapshot of files, a directory, a volume, etc. (George, ¶ [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of George into the method of the patent to provide a method of wherein the set of data comprises an entire volume, one or more files, or a directory. The modification would be obvious because being able to create a snapshot based on file, directory or volume provides system greater control on what to be included in the snapshot based on the user/system needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if terminally disclaimed to overcome the double patenting rejection noted above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 1, the examiner found no prior arts that teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, each and every limitations of the claim when the claim is taken into the consideration as a whole. In particular, no prior arts teach “during a data restoration operation of a set of data from an object store of a cloud,” and "preserving storage efficiency, by the data storage system, as part of performing the data restoration operation by selectively issuing a request for a particular portion of data of the set of data associated with a particular CBN associated with the object store based on existence or nonexistence of a valid mapping of the particular CBN to a particular block number of the corresponding plurality of block numbers." The closes prior art cited by the examiner is George et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0,285,410 A1) [hereafter George]. George discloses method for transferring snapshot copy to object store with deduplication to preserve efficiency within the object store. Cloud block numbers are recorded in the mapping metafile and looked up to ensure only a single copy of changed blocks are copied to the object store, and using a reference in place of the delta data when there is no change in the data. While the method in preserving the efficiency of the object store in George's teachings is similar to the method of the instant application, the claims of the instant application are different in that the storage efficiency of the volume of the data storage system is preserved during the restoration of data from the object store. The examiner found no prior arts that teach such claimed limitations of the instant application and did not find the difference to be obvious over the teachings of George.
Claim 8 and claim 14 are a system claim and a machine readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and are allowable for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1, 8 or 14 and are allowable as a result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Pub. 2019/0,235,972 A1 discloses a technique for restoring NAS servers that have been archived to the cloud.
PG Pub. 2022/0,283,724 A1 discusses method for avoiding storing duplicate data using references in a deduplication backup system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114