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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 13, 2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Amendment made to the instant specification has been received and acknowledged.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/20/2026 has been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chtchetkine et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,363,400) in view of Kakoti et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0004540) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 16 above, and in further view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,341,009).
Referring to claim 1, Chtchetkine et al. teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a request to view a portion of a first file system (A file system driver is a collection of function routines and file management structures that perform various tasks related to files and folders stored in logical disks, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 2, lines 19-22) and a second file system (request to obtain the contents of a virtual folder and the virtual file supervisor 168 services the request, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 19, lines 39-41, causes the browser application (that appears as the standard shell of the operating system 130) 230 to be switched from using its inherited view component to using the view component contained in the view application 220, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 20, lines 20-24);
generating, by at least one processor, a representation of a portion of the first file system and the second file system (causes the browser application (that appears as the standard shell of the operating system 130) 230 to be switched from using its inherited view component to using the view component contained in the view application 220, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 20, lines 20-24 and Figure 9), wherein the representation includes the file at a file path (working folder path might be C:\StarTeam\StarDraw\Source, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 71, lines 9-10).
However, Chtchetkine et al. does not explicitly teach a first indication of one or more backups of the file for the first file system, and a second indication of one or more backups of the file for the second file system. Kakoti et al. teaches a first indication of one or more backups of the file (one or more snapshots of one or more areas of interest of the digitized image of the specimen, see Kakoti et al., Para. 19) for the first file system, and a second indication of one or more backups of the file for the second file system (the snapshot icon 110 may include a snapshot tag 122 which may be configured to indicate a number of the snapshots… the snapshot tag 122 may show the number "4", indicating that there are four snapshots associated with one or more areas of interest of the digitized image, see Kakoti et al., Para. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chtchetkine et al., to have a first indication of one or more backups of the file for the first file system, and a second indication of one or more backups of the file for the second file system, as taught by Kakoti et al., to improve the usability of the platform (Kakoti et al., Para. 17).
Chtchetkine et al. as modified still does not explicitly teach
determining, by the at least one processor and using a hash comparison of file contents, whether a backup of a file in the first file system is identical to a backup of the file in the second file system;
wherein the representation includes a number of backups of the file that are identical in content and available at the file path in both the first file system and the second file system.
Wu et al. teaches
determining, by the at least one processor and using a hash comparison of file contents, whether a backup of a file in the first file system is identical to a backup of the file in the second file system (compare the hash value of binary 0010 for the replica 294 against the unique identifiers binary 0001 284, binary 0100 290, and binary 0101 292 for the three Azure/USA eastern data center/GPU cloud storage nodes 224, 230, and 232 to identify the subset of two Azure/USA eastern data center/GPU cloud storage nodes 224 and 230 for storing the replicas, see Wu et al., Col. 12, lines 41-47);
wherein the representation includes a number of backups of the file that are identical in content and available at the file path in both the first file system and the second file system (A redundancy number can be an arithmetical value that represents a protected level of failure, see Wu et al., Col. 7, lines 46-48, and A file object extension contains a pointer to the file object created by the 1/0 manager 131 in conformity to a file being opened on a virtual disk 155. Next, a file object extension contains the pathname of a virtual file that addresses it on the virtual disk, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 13, lines 32-36 and working folder path might be C:\StarTeam\StarDraw\Source, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 71, lines 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chtchetkine et al. as modified, to have determining, by the at least one processor and using a hash comparison of file contents, whether a backup of a file in the first file system is identical to a backup of the file in the second file system; wherein the representation includes a number of backups of the file that are identical in content and available at the file path in both the first file system and the second file system, as taught by Wu et al., to have data availability is improved, and the racing conditions are solved efficiently (Wu et al., Col. 9, lines 50-51).
As to claim 2, Chtchetkine et al. as modified teaches an indication of a first number of backups available for the file for the first file system and a second number of backups available for the file for the second file system (A redundancy number can be an arithmetical value that represents a protected level of failure, see Wu et al., Col. 7, lines 46-48).
As to claim 3, Chtchetkine et al. as modified does not explicitly teach an indication of a number of backups of the file that are identical in content to a backup of the file for the first file system and are available in the second file system at a path that is different from the file path (A file system driver is a collection of function routines and file management structures that perform various tasks related to files and folders stored in logical disks, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 2, lines 19-22. A redundancy number can be an arithmetical value that represents a protected level of failure, see Wu et al., Col. 7, lines 46-48).
As to claim 4, Chtchetkine et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the representation includes a plurality of points in time of backups of the file for the first file system (Multiple snapshots may be associated with the same area of interest, see Kakoti et al., Para. 75).
Referring to claim 11, Chtchetkine et al. teaches an apparatus comprising: a communication interface (computer, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 2, line 66); a memory (memory, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 2, line 14) configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (computer, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 2, line 66) configured to execute the instructions to, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
As to claim 15, Chtchetkine et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the representation includes a plurality of points in time of backups of the file for the first file system and the second file system (Multiple snapshots may be associated with the same area of interest, see Kakoti et al., Para. 75, compare the hash value of binary 0010 for the replica 294 against the unique identifiers binary 0001 284, binary 0100 290, and binary 0101 292 for the three Azure/USA eastern data center/GPU cloud storage nodes 224, 230, and 232 to identify the subset of two Azure/USA eastern data center/GPU cloud storage nodes 224 and 230 for storing the replicas, see Wu et al., Col. 12, lines 41-47).
Referring to claim 16, Chtchetkine et al. teaches at least one computer-readable non-transitory media (memory, see Chtchetkine et al., Col. 2, line 14) comprising one or more instructions that when executed by at least one processor configure the at least one processor to cause performance of operations, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 15 rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/13/2026 with respect to claims 1, 11 and 16 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights