This action is in response to RCE filed on 08/07/2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for the examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but arguments with regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/07/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Potashnik teaches the claimed restoration architecture. Specifically, Potashnik discloses an initial snapshot instance serving as a baseline snapshot and a reverse-delta snapshot structure (para. [0175]) Potashnik further teaches reconstructing a particular snapshot by resolving data and references associated with other snapshots (para. 0176).
Additionally, Potashnik teaches storing snapshot-related data at different storage levels. Paragraph 164 discloses moving data blocks from a first storage level to a second storage level while maintaining corresponding metadata in the first storage level. Thus, during reconstruction, the required snapshot data is accessed from its respective storage location.
Accordingly, Potashnik teaches or at least suggests restoring a particular snapshot by accessing baseline and reverse-delta snapshot maintained at different storage levels. Applicant’s argument that Potashnik merely discloses storage locations, rather than retrieval during restoration, is therefore not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
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 tier within 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 the storage tier storing the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas, a baseline snapshot capturing a particular state of the storage resource; and
restoring a particular snapshot of the plurality of snapshots by accessing the baseline snapshot from outside the storage tier and accessing at least a subset of the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas from the storage tier;
However, Potashnik discloses storing, outside of the storage tier storing 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);
restoring a particular snapshot of the plurality of snapshots by accessing the baseline snapshot from outside the storage tier and accessing at least a subset of the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas from the storage tier ([0164], During reconstruction, the required snapshot data is accessed from its respective storage location, ([0175]) An initial snapshot instance serving as a baseline snapshot and a reverse-delta snapshot structure Potashnik further teaches reconstructing a particular snapshot by resolving data and references associated with other snapshots ([0176]);
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, wherein restoring particular snapshot comprises applying the subset of the plurality of snapshot reverse deltas to the baseline snapshot to restore the particular snapshot ([0181], [0184]-[0186], [0175], [0176] An initial snapshot instance serving as a baseline snapshot and a reverse-delta snapshot structure Potashnik further teaches reconstructing a particular snapshot by resolving data and references associated with other snapshots.
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: restoring a particular snapshot of the plurality of snapshots, includes: 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
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