DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application, filed October 30, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The present application was filed on September 24, 2020, which is on or after March 16, 2013, and thus is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,153,818 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of present application are fully anticipated by the claims of issued patent. The issued US patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter. The one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they are obvious variants.
Claims 1-7 are compared to claims 1-7 of US patent US 12,153,818 B2 in the table below:
Instant Application
US Patent No : US 12,153,818 B2
1. A method comprising:
generating, by a processing device, a snapshot of a bucket that includes corresponding object versions of a plurality of objects stored in the bucket; and
generating a read-only copy of the bucket using the snapshot that comprises the corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects,
wherein generation of the read-only copy of the bucket prevents deletion of the snapshot.
1. A method comprising:
generating, by a processing device, a snapshot of the bucket, wherein the snapshot records the corresponding object version of each of the plurality of objects at a time associated with the generation of the snapshot; and
generating a read-only copy of the bucket using the snapshot, wherein the read-only copy of the bucket comprises the corresponding object version of each of the plurality of objects,
wherein generation of the read-only copy of the bucket prevents deletion of the snapshot.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a subsequent snapshot of the bucket that captures subsequent corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects,
wherein at least one of the subsequent corresponding object versions in the subsequent snapshot is a different object version than the corresponding object versions in the snapshot.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a second snapshot of the bucket, wherein the second snapshot captures the corresponding object version of each of the plurality of objects at a second time associated with the generation of the snapshot,
wherein at least one of the corresponding object versions in the second snapshot is a different object version than the corresponding object version in the snapshot.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
reverting the plurality of objects back to the corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects captured in the snapshot upon receiving a request to revert the bucket.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
reverting the plurality of objects back to the corresponding object version of each of the plurality of objects captured in the snapshot upon receiving a request to revert the bucket.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a deletion marker for an object of the plurality of objects upon receiving a request to delete the object,
wherein the deletion marker prevents display of the object in a subsequent snapshot of the bucket.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a deletion marker for an object of the plurality of objects upon receiving a request to delete the object,
wherein the deletion marker prevents display of the object in a subsequent snapshot of the bucket.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the read-only copy of the bucket is associated with a recovery point retained for an amount of time.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the read-only copy of the bucket is associated with a recovery point retained for a time period.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a clone of the bucket using the snapshot, wherein the clone of the bucket comprises the corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a clone of the bucket using the snapshot, wherein the clone of the bucket comprises the corresponding object version of each of the plurality of objects at the time associated with the generation of the snapshot.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein deletion of the snapshot is available once the read-only copy of the bucket is destroyed.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein deletion of the snapshot is available once the read-only copy of the bucket is destroyed.
The table shows the method claims 1-7 compared to method claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,153,818 B2. The same rationale applies to the storage claims 8-14 and medium claims 15-20 because they are fully anticipated by system claims 14-20 and medium claims 8-13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,153,818 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (US 2020/0068038 A1) in view of Samprathi et al. (US 2019/0384678 A1) and further in view of Dillaman (US 2022/0035537 A1).
As per claim 1: A method comprising:
generating, by a processing device, a snapshot of a bucket that includes corresponding object versions of a plurality of objects stored in the bucket; and
Xing discloses [0016, 0048] snapshots allow applications to record object state and version information at specified points in time of the snapshots, but fails to explicitly disclose the snapshot records corresponding object version of each of the objects. Samparthi discloses a similar method, which further teaches [Fig. 4; 0044-0048] for each object of the snapshot, the backup and restore layer can store the unique ID of the object, the associated snapshot ID, the time of the snapshot, the version ID of the object stored in the bucket, and the size of the file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Xing with that of Samparthi. One would have been motivated to record corresponding object version for each object because it allows to provide backup and restore capability [Samparthi; 0003].
generating a read-only copy of the bucket using the snapshot that comprises the corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects, wherein generation of the read-only copy of the bucket prevents deletion of the snapshot.
Xing and Samparthi disclose generating a bucket snapshot records corresponding object version of each of the objects, but fails to explicitly disclose generating a read-only snapshot bucket which prevents deletion of the snapshot. Dillaman discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0018] generating an object-based proxy bucket and further specify if a client is allowed to view-only (read-only), so the client cannot delete the snapshots stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Xing and Samparthi with that of Dillaman. One would have been motivated to generate a read-only copy of the bucket using snapshot because it allows the administrator to maintain client permissions [Dillaman; 0018].
As per claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a subsequent snapshot of the bucket that captures subsequent corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects, wherein at least one of the subsequent corresponding object versions in the subsequent snapshot is a different object versions than the corresponding versions in the snapshot.
Xing discloses [0055] a plurality of time-series snapshots that store the changes and versions of objects that were valid at any specified time. A time-series database snapshot allows to track when objects are created and updated (version changes), which enables roll-back to previous objects.
As per claim 3: The method of claim 2, further comprising: reverting the plurality of objects back to the corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects captured in the snapshot upon receiving a request to revert the bucket.
Xing discloses [0048] roll-backs allow applications to revert to an earliest set of objects (or a cloned set of objects) if desired.
As per claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a deletion marker for an object of the plurality of objects upon receiving a request to delete the object, wherein the deletion marker prevents display of the object in a subsequent snapshot of the bucket.
Xing discloses [0073] the garbage collection services can delete objects from their respective buckets, and then update the time-series database to reflect the changes.
As per claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein the read-only copy of the bucket is associated with a recovery point retained for an amount of time.
Xing discloses [0048] roll-backs allow applications to revert to an earliest set of objects (recovery point) if desired.
As per claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a clone of the bucket using the snapshot, wherein the clone of the bucket comprises the corresponding object versions of the plurality of objects.
Xing discloses [0048] snapshots allow applications to record object state at specified points in time, while cloning creates a duplicate copy of a set of objections and the corresponding version at the specified time.
As per claims 8-13: Although claims 8-13 are directed towards a system claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1-6 above.
As per claims 15-20: Although claims 15-20 are directed towards a medium claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1-6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if they overcome the Double Patenting rejection above and are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
· US 20160350325 A1 – Wang discloses a snapshot is a read-only copy of a client data object and it does not allow reclamation of space and deletion of data within snapshots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGAR P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5067. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 10AM-6PM.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIGAR P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights