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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Step 1: Claim 12 recites “a method for..” which recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 17 recites “A system…” therefore is a machine. Claim 1 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite limitations “check” ”identifying” “determining”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processor or a producer party, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "receive””based on” these limitation amounts to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); and are elements merely invoking a generic computer environment (processor, database, memory) and basic data-gathering or outputting functions (MPEP 21.96.05(f)) hence reciting insignificant extra solution activities.
The one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "receive” and "based" are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. No elements individually or in combination adds “significantly more” than the abstract idea hence are no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. When viewed as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself
Claim 2 recites comparing values of data which is a mental process. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 3 recites computing values of data which is a mental process. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 4 recites communication and data receiving details. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 5 recites communication and data receiving details. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 6recites data receiving details. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 7 recites identifying data and determining if it has changed which is a mental process. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 8 recites structural storing of data details. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 9 recites blocking a commit. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 10 recites identifying data. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 11 recites remediation actions. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 13 recites data environment in which the invention functions within. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 14 recites an identifier. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 15 recites identifying data and determining if it has changed which is a mental process. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 16 recites multiple honeypot patterns. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 18 recites a comparing hashes which is a mental process. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 19 recites structural storing of data details. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim 20 recites blocking a commit. Claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application at Step 2A Prong 2, or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Yadav et al. US2023/0205640
Regarding claim 1, Yadav teaches: receive a representation of a honeypot pattern and information of a honeypot object containing the honeypot pattern injected into primary data; (Yadav see paragraphs 0132 0133 for each file and folder generate a checksum and each database file to have metadata, checksum reads on representation of pattern and metadata reads on information, file reads on object)
check backup data created by a backup management system, the checking comprising: (Yadav see paragraph 0135 snapshot data is used to create backup copy)
identifying an instance of the honeypot object in the backup data, and (Yadav see paragraph 0135 0136 0162 copy snapshot from source to secondary storage as backup and generate a second checksum, pick any file or folder read it from destination and compute a checksum thereby identifying an instance of object in backup where the backed up file selected from destination storage is an instance of the file object stored in the source)
determining whether data of the instance of the honeypot object deviates from the honeypot pattern; and (Yadav see paragraph 0137 compare first and second checksums and if they do not match then backup copy has failed)
based on determining that the data of the instance of the honeypot object deviates from the honeypot pattern, trigger a remediation action relating to the backup data. (Yadav see paragraph 0137 0139 compare first and second checksums and if they do not match then backup copy has failed then mismatch triggers an alert notification for further investigation and backup is marked as failed)
Regarding claim 2, Yadav teaches: wherein the determining of whether the data of the instance of the honeypot object deviates from the honeypot pattern comprises comparing a value derived from the data of the instance of the honeypot object to the representation of the honeypot pattern. (Yadav see paragraph 0132 0137 compare first and second checksums where a checksum is generating by a hash function)
Regarding claim 3, Yadav teaches: wherein the representation of the honeypot pattern comprises a value computed by applying a function on the honeypot pattern, and wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to:
compute a value based on the data of the instance of the honeypot object; and
compare the computed value to the value in the representation of the honeypot pattern,
wherein the determining of whether the data of the instance of the honeypot object deviates from the honeypot pattern is based on the comparing. (Yadav see paragraph 0132 0137 compare first and second checksums and if they do not match then backup copy has failed such that checksum is a hash)
Regarding claim 7, Yadav teaches: wherein the honeypot pattern is a first honeypot pattern, the honeypot object is a first honeypot object, and the instructions upon execution cause the system to:
receive a representation of a second honeypot pattern and information of a second honeypot object containing the second honeypot pattern injected into the primary data,
wherein the checking comprises:
identifying an instance of the second honeypot object in the backup data, and
determining whether data of the instance of the second honeypot object deviates from the second honeypot pattern. (Yadav see paragraphs 0132-0139 for each file first checksums are generated then second checksums are generated for backups and compared to determine if they match where this process occurring for each file and plural nature of first and second checksums reads on more than one object)
Regarding claim 8, Yadav teaches: wherein the first honeypot object comprises a first honeypot file in a first directory of a file system, and the second honeypot object comprises a second honeypot file in a second directory of the file system. (Yadav see paragraph 0132 validation for each file and folder generating checksums for each which reads on more than one file and folder)
Regarding claim 9, Yadav teaches: wherein the remediation action comprises blocking a commit of the backup data to a backup storage system. (Yadav see paragraph 0139 if mismatch is found backup is not committed)
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 1
Regarding claim 13, Yadav teaches: wherein the protection agent is executed in a first system comprising a primary storage system storing the primary data, the first system being separate from the validation system. (Yadav see paragraph 0049 0050 0054 0125 computing environment to include a backup host with validation framework separate from production host such that backup software includes a driver installed on production host and backup proxy to process snapshot from production)
Regarding claim 14, Yadav teaches: wherein the information of the honeypot object sent by the protection agent to the validation agent comprises an identifier of the honeypot object. (Yadav see paragraph 0049 0050 0054 0125 0133 computing environment to include a backup host with validation framework separate from production host such that backup software includes a driver installed on production host and backup proxy to process snapshot from production such that validation logic to capture file identifiers)
Regarding claim 15, Yadav teaches: wherein the honeypot object is a first honeypot object, and the honeypot pattern is a first honeypot pattern, the method further comprising:
adding, by the protection agent, a representation of a second honeypot object into the primary data;
sending, by the protection agent to the validation agent, a second honeypot pattern and information of the second honeypot object,
wherein the checking comprises:
identifying an instance of the second honeypot object in the backup data, and
determining whether data of the instance of the second honeypot object deviates from the second honeypot pattern. (Yadav see paragraphs 0132-0139 for each file first checksums are generated then second checksums are generated for backups and compared to determine if they match where this process occurring for each file and plural nature of first and second checksums reads on more than one object)
Regarding claim 16, Yadav teaches: wherein the second honeypot pattern is different from the first honeypot pattern (Yadav see paragraph 0132 validation for each file and folder generating checksums for each which reads on more than one file and folder)
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 1
Regarding claim 18, Yadav teaches: wherein the representation of the honeypot pattern comprises a hash value derived by applying a hash function on the honeypot pattern, and wherein the value compared to the representation of the honeypot pattern is computed by the instructions by applying the hash function on the data of the instance of the honeypot object. (Yadav see paragraph 0132 checksum is generated by applying a hash function to data)
Regarding claim 19, Yadav teaches: wherein the honeypot object is a honeypot file added to a directory of a file system containing the primary data, and wherein the information of the honeypot object comprises a pathname of the honeypot file in the file system. (Yadav see paragraph 0162 randomly picking a file or folder and a path to traverse)
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 9
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. US2023/0205640 in view of Kumarasamy et al. US2014/0181032
Regarding claim 4, Yadav teaches: wherein the representation of the honeypot pattern (Yadav see paragraphs 0132 0133 for each file and folder generate a checksum and each database file to have metadata, checksum reads on representation of pattern
Yadav does not teach: pattern and the information of the honeypot object are received at the system from a protection agent over a secondary communication channel that is separate from a backup communication channel over which the backup data is transferred to a backup storage system.
Kumarasamy teaches: pattern and the information of the honeypot object are received at the system from a protection agent over a secondary communication channel that is separate from a backup communication channel over which the backup data is transferred to a backup storage system. (Kumarasamy see paragraph 0103 see figure 1c, store manager to communicate with client computing devices and secondary devices communication data such as control information payload data and metadata)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of validating a backup copy as taught by Yadav as modified to include separate communications as taught by Kumarasamy for the predictable result of more efficiently managing and organizing data.
Regarding claim 5, Yadav as modified further teaches: wherein the system is separate from a computing environment at which the protection agent executes and including a primary storage system that stores the primary data. (Yadav see paragraph 0049 0050 0054 computing environment to include a backup host separate from production host such that backup software includes a driver installed on production host and backup proxy to process snapshot from production, driver reads on protection agent production storage or source volume reads on primary storage and data)
Claim(s) 6 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. US2023/0205640 in view of Araujo et al. US2019/0065745
Regarding claim 6, Yadav does not teach: wherein the honeypot object is injected by the protection agent into the primary data.
However, Araujo teaches: wherein the honeypot object is injected by the protection agent into the primary data. (Araujo see paragraph 0039 0040 decoy generation module injects decoy files into host)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of validating a backup copy as taught by Yadav as modified to include injecting decoy files as taught by Araujo for the predictable result of more efficiently managing and protecting data.
Claim(s) 10 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. US2023/0205640 in view of Kaplingat et al. US2021/0103555
Regarding claim 10, Yadav teaches: wherein the information of the honeypot object comprises an identifier of the honeypot object, (Yadav see paragraph 0133 file identifiers names)
Yadav does not teach: and the identifying of the instance of the honeypot object in the backup data is based on the identifier of the honeypot object.
Kalplingat teaches: and the identifying of the instance of the honeypot object in the backup data is based on the identifier of the honeypot object. (Kaplingat see paragraph 0004 0068 0096 0097 files on backup catalog storage such that unique identifier such as file name or path used for restore and search on backup catalog)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of validating a backup copy as taught by Yadav as modified to include identifying backup files as taught by Kaplingat for the predictable result of more efficiently managing and backing up data.
Claim(s) 11 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. US2023/0205640 in view of Reddy et al. US2009/0228533
Regarding claim 11, Yadav does not teach: wherein the checking further comprises determining whether metadata of the instance of the honeypot object has changed, and wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to:
trigger the remediation action based on determining that the metadata of the instance of the honeypot object has changed.
Reddy teaches: wherein the checking further comprises determining whether metadata of the instance of the honeypot object has changed, and wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to: (Reddy see paragraph 0016 0017 0021 creating signature based on metadata and comparing signatures to determine whether or not file has changed)
trigger the remediation action based on determining that the metadata of the instance of the honeypot object has changed. (Reddy see paragraph 0016 0017 0021 creating signature based on metadata and comparing signatures to determine whether or not file has changed, if signatures are different then the file is backed up)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of validating a backup copy as taught by Yadav as modified to include comparing signatures as taught by Reddy for the predictable result of more efficiently managing and organizing data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights