This action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/10/2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for the examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are directed to data storage and management including storing snapshot reverse deltas and a baseline snapshot in different storage tiers, which constitutes an abstract idea of organizing and storing information. The recited operations are implemented using generic storage systems and do not recite a specific technological improvement to computer functionality. Any alleged improvement in storage efficiency or access time is not recited in the claims and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Additionally, the use of snapshot data, deltas, and tiered storage represents well-understood, routine and conventional data management techniques. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The specification confirms that snapshots, including baseline snapshots and delta-based snapshots, and reconstruction using data in isolation or in combination with other snapshots are conventional techniques. See Spec. [0265]. Luo teaches snapshot structures including baseline and incremental/reverse incremental data and Potashnik teaches snapshot management and storage optimization across storage level, including reference-based reconstruction and data placement techniques susch as filling down.
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to store basline snapshot data and snapshot delta data in different storage tiers as a predictable optimization to improve storage and reconstruction efficiency. The recitation of reverse deltas relative to a sequentioal next snapshot and tier placement represents a routine variation of known snapshot management techniques that does not patentably distinguish over the prior-art. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation storing snapshot deltas and a baseline in different tiers are considered as information organizing or storage management, identified as an abstract idea in the claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the claim merely recites storing snapshot deltas and a baseline in different tiers – generic computer components. There is no detail that explains how the arrangement improves in any technical way.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the elements used in claims, snapshots, deltas, tiering are routing storage practices and would be characterized as “well-understood, routine, conventional” storage operations.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation storing snapshot deltas and a baseline in different tiers are considered as information organizing or storage management, identified as an abstract idea in the claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the claim merely recites storing snapshot deltas and a baseline in different tiers – generic computer components. There is no detail that explains how the arrangement improves in any technical way.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the elements used in claims, snapshots, deltas, tiering are routing storage practices and would be characterized as “well-understood, routine, conventional” storage operations.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 11.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2021/0117293, referred herein after Luo) in view of Potashnik et al. (US 2022/0398018, referred herein after Potashnik).
As per claim 1, 11, Luo discloses a method, comprising:
storing, in a storage system, a plurality of snapshot reverse deltas, wherein the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas correspond to a plurality of snapshots of a storage resource and describe changes to the storage resource relative to a sequentially next snapshot; and (Fig. 2A. [0031], [0053], A reverse incremental file may include a set of data representing changes from a later point in time snapshot of a virtual machine. To generate a snapshot of the virtual machine corresponding with a reverse incremental file, the reverse incremental file may be combined with a later point in time snapshot of the virtual machine);
Luo does not specifically disclose storing, outside of a same storage tier as the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas, a baseline snapshot capturing a particular state of the storage resource;
However, Potashnik discloses storing, outside of a same storage tier as the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas, a baseline snapshot capturing a particular state of the storage resource (Fig. 4C, [0161], [0162], [0175], an initial snapshot instance (430) may serve as a baseline snapshot, Fig. 4A, snapshots are stored in second storage level 418 and metadata structure of the snapshot (reverse delta) are stored in first storage level 420 as claimed);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Potashnik’s tiering snapshots across different storage tiers into Luo’s database snapshot and backup management because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide significant cost savings and helps to optimize performance.
As per claim 2, 12, Potashnik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the baseline snapshot is stored in a different storage tier of the storage system than the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas (Fig. 4A, [0161], [0162]).
As per claim 3, 13, Potashnik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the baseline snapshot is stored in another storage system different than the storage system (Fig. 4C, [0161], [0162], [0175], an initial snapshot instance (430) may serve as a baseline snapshot, Fig. 4A, snapshots are stored in second storage level 418 and metadata structure of the snapshot (reverse delta) are stored in first storage level 420 as claimed).
As per claim 4, 14, Potashnik discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising restoring a particular snapshot of the plurality of snapshots based on the baseline snapshot and at least a subset of the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas, wherein restoring the particular snapshot includes accessing the baseline snapshot from outside the storage tier storing the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas ([0181], [0184]-[0186]).
Claims 5-10, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo and Potashnik in view of Stickler (US 2003/0097365).
As per claim 5, 15, neither Luo nor Potashnik discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising storing, in the storage system, a plurality of snapshot forward deltas, wherein the plurality of snapshot forward deltas describes changes to the storage resource relative to a sequentially preceding snapshot, wherein a snapshot of the plurality of snapshots corresponds to a respective snapshot reverse delta and to a respective snapshot forward delta and where the respective snapshot reverse delta and the respective snapshot forward delta are both stored on the storage system;
However, Stickler discloses storing, in the storage system, a plurality of snapshot forward deltas, wherein the plurality of snapshot forward deltas describes changes to the storage resource relative to a sequentially preceding snapshot ([1239], forward deltas, where the delta defines the operations needed to derive the more recent revision from the preceding revision), wherein a snapshot of the plurality of snapshots corresponds to a respective snapshot reverse delta and to a respective snapshot forward delta and where the respective snapshot reverse delta and the respective snapshot forward delta are both stored on the storage system ([0087]-[0089]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Stickler’s method of versioning and data modeling into Potashnik’s tiering snapshots across different storage tiers and Luo’s database snapshot and backup management because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a hybrid approach that optimizes both the speed of creating snapshots (backups) and the efficiency/speed of data recovery.
As per claim 6, 16, Luo discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the baseline snapshot is included in a plurality of baseline snapshots, and wherein the method further comprises: restoring a particular snapshot of the plurality of snapshots, including: identifying a nearest baseline snapshot of the plurality of baseline snapshots relative to the particular snapshot; and ([0014]-[0016], a storage appliance may acquire an instruction to recover a database to a particular version of the database corresponding with a particular point in time, determine a snapshot associated with a snapshot time that is closest in time to the particular point in time (e.g., the snapshot closest in time to the recovery point) or the snapshot associated with the recoverable chain with the fastest data recovery for the particular version of the database);
selecting one or more snapshot deltas based on whether the nearest baseline snapshot occurs sequentially before the particular snapshot or sequentially after the particular snapshot ([0031], To generate a snapshot of the virtual machine corresponding with a reverse incremental file, the reverse incremental file may be combined with a later point in time snapshot of the virtual machine (e.g., the reverse incremental file may be combined with the most recent snapshot of the virtual machine and any other reverse incremental files that were captured prior to the most recent snapshot and subsequent to the reverse incremental file, To generate a snapshot of the virtual machine corresponding with a forward incremental file, the forward incremental file may be combined with an earlier point in time snapshot of the virtual machine).
As per claim 7, 17, Luo discloses the method of claim 6, wherein selecting the one or more snapshot deltas comprises selecting, as the one or more snapshot deltas, one or more snapshot reverse deltas based on the nearest baseline snapshot occurring sequentially after the particular snapshot (Fig. 2A, [0031], [0053], A reverse incremental file may include a set of data representing changes from a later point in time snapshot of a virtual machine. To generate a snapshot of the virtual machine corresponding with a reverse incremental file, the reverse incremental file may be combined with a later point in time snapshot of the virtual machine).
As per claim 8, 18, Luo discloses the method of claim 6, wherein selecting the one or more snapshot deltas comprises selecting, as the one or more snapshot deltas, one or more snapshot forward deltas based on the nearest baseline snapshot occurring sequentially before the particular snapshot ([0031], To generate a snapshot of the virtual machine corresponding with a forward incremental file, the forward incremental file may be combined with an earlier point in time snapshot of the virtual machine).
As per claim 9, 19, Luo discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising deleting, from the storage system, one or more snapshots occurring between a retained snapshot and a furthest bounding baseline snapshot ([0079], [0058], Periodically reducing the number of forward incremental files may reduce the time to restore the most recent version of the virtual machine).
As per claim 10, 20, Luo discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising deleting, from the storage system, a tail of expired snapshots occurring before an oldest unexpired snapshot ([0079], [0058]).
Conclusion
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 KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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 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). 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights