CTFR 18/970,473 CTFR 83192 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 April 27, 2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhtar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2026/0003742) in view of Sinha et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0168923) . Referring to claim 1, Akhtar et al. teaches a method for recovery of a portion of a backup image, the method comprising: obtaining, by a proxy data mover and from a host operating system (the one or more client devices 106 may include laptop computing devices, desktop computing devices, mobile computing devices, tablet computing devices, and/or server computing device, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 85, client devices are computing devices are executing operating system) , a request (receiving, from a client device, a request to initiate a restore of the plurality of ranges, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 11) specifying accessing a file in the backup image (access, and read from the backup SST files stored by the external storage system to serve the requests while the backup SST files are copied to and stored by the nodes of the cluster, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 33) ; in response to the request: to identify, from a plurality of subsystem volumes, a subsystem volume of the plurality of subsystem volume associated with the file (hybrid storage techniques are introduced that cause generation and storage of virtual SST files among nodes of the cluster, where the virtual SST files stored on the nodes of the cluster identify and point to backup SST files stored by the external storage system, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 33) , wherein the subsystem volume is used to identify a storage location of the file in the backup image, wherein each of the plurality of subsystem volumes is associated with a portion of the backup image (the object providers may track and store information identifying a location and a system (e.g., the cluster or the external storage system) on which backup SST files corresponding to virtual SST files are located, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 151), accessing a backup storage system using the and via the NFS subsystem volumes to access the backup image (access, and read from the backup SST files stored by the external storage system to serve the requests while the backup SST files are copied to and stored by the nodes of the cluster, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 33) ; obtaining, after the accessing, the file from the backup image (access, and read from the backup SST files stored by the external storage system to serve the requests while the backup SST files are copied to and stored by the nodes of the cluster, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 33). However, Akhtar et al. does not explicitly teach the request is issued by the host operating system using an internet small computer system interface (iSCSI) protocol; utilizing a virtual file system manager to generated by the virtual file system manager; wherein the subsystem volume is accessed using a network file system (NFS) protocol; providing the file to the host operating system. Sinha et al. teaches the request is issued by the host operating system using an internet small computer system interface (iSCSI) protocol (The read and write requests may be sent between host machines 102, 104, 106 via network 154, e.g., using a network communication protocol such as iSCSI, see Sinha et al. , Para. 55) ; utilizing a virtual file system manager to generated by the virtual file system manager (one or more virtualization managers ( e.g., one or more virtual machine managers, such as one or more hypervisors, and/or one or more container managers)… Examples of container managers including Kubernetes. The virtualization software shown in FIG. 1A includes hypervisors 130, 132, and 134 which may create, manage, and/or destroy user VMs, as well as manage the interactions between the underlying hardware and user VMs, see Sinha et al. , Para. 45.) ; wherein the subsystem volume is accessed using a network file system (NFS) protocol (Generally, FSVMs may be utilized to receive and process requests in accordance with a file system protocol e.g., NFS, SMB. In this manner, the cluster of FSVMs may provide a file system that may present files, folders, and/or a directory structure to users, where the files, folders, and/or directory structure may be distributed across a storage pool in one or more shares, see Sinha et al. , Para. 53) ; providing the file to the host operating system (VFS 160 provides file services to user VMs 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, and 122. The file services may include storing and retrieving data,… The stored data may be represented as a set of storage items, such as files organized in a hierarchical structure of folders, see Sinha et al. , Para. 51) . 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 Akhtar et al. , to have the request is issued by the host operating system using an internet small computer system interface (iSCSI) protocol; utilizing a virtual file system manager to generated by the virtual file system manager; wherein the subsystem volume is accessed using a network file system (NFS) protocol; providing the file to the host operating system, as taught by Sinha et al. , to improve performance ( Sinha et al. , Para. 65). As to claim 2, Akhtar et al. teaches obtaining, from a data protection system, a virtual file system, wherein the data protection system (where each SST file 322…is immutable, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 110) creates the virtual file system using the backup image stored in the backup storage system (generate and store a number of virtual data files in the number of ranges. Each range of the number of ranges can include one or more virtual data files of the number of virtual data files. The one or more virtual data files for a respective range can identify physical data configured to be stored by the respective range and one or more backup files of the number of backup files, the one or more backup files being associated with the respective range and the physical data including at least a portion of the backup data of the one or more backup files, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 170). As to claim 3, Akhtar et al. teaches generating, by the proxy data mover, a set of backend objects associated with the backup image, wherein each backend object corresponds to one of a plurality of files in the backup image; generating a storage identifier for each of the set of backend objects; and creating the plurality of subsystem volumes using a mapping of the backend objects to the storage identifier of each of the set of backend objects (determining the key spans of the keys of the backup SST files configured to be stored by each of the new ranges may include generating and assigning metadata to each of the ranges, the metadata associating both of (i) key span(s) or portion(s) thereof of one or more of the backup SST files and (ii) identifiers of the one or more of the backup SST files with the respective range, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 139). As to claim 5, Akhtar et al. teaches a data mover interface agent (the application(s) may interface with the nodes 120 to access, modify, and/or retrieve stored KV data, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 85), and wherein the data protection system configures the data mover interface agent with a portion of the virtual file system (initiate download of the KV data of the backup SST files from the external storage system to the new ranges stored by the nodes of the cluster, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 144). Referring to claim 8, Akhtar et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (The system 800 includes a processor 810, a memory 820, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 178) comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for recovery of a portion of a backup image, the method, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection. Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection. Referring to claim 15, Akhtar et al. teaches a system comprising: a processor; and memory (The system 800 includes a processor 810, a memory 820, see Akhtar et al. , Para. 178) comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, perform a method, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhtar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2026/0003742) in view of Sinha et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0168923) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 18 above, and in further view of Liang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. US 2005/0044162) . As to claim 4, Akhtar et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the storage identifier of each of the set of backend objects is each represented as a logical unit number (LUN). However, Liang et al. teaches the storage identifier of each of the set of backend objects is each represented as a logical unit number (LUN) (each virtual LUN recognized by the SCSI termination 64 has a corresponding NBS identifier recognized by the network block services server 75 and a corresponding storage object container file name, see Liang et al. , Para. 51). 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 Akhtar et al. , to have the storage identifier of each of the set of backend objects is each represented as a logical unit number (LUN), as taught by Liang et al. , to provide disaster protection by replicating the database files and transaction logs to a geographically remote network file server and taking read-only copies or snapshots of the database and logs, for backup to tape ( Liang et al. , Para. 29). Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhtar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2026/0003742) in view of Sinha et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0168923) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 18 above, and in further view of Gunasekaran et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. US 2024/0211434) . As to claim 6, Akhtar et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the virtual file system manager is an iSCSI target, and wherein the data mover interface agent is an iSCSI initiator. However, Gunasekaran et al. teach the virtual file system manager is an iSCSI target, and wherein the data mover interface agent is an iSCSI initiator (The VTO virtualization module 116 provides a target interface (e.g., via iSCSI) for the SSMO module 114 to move data to and from the cloud infrastructure 128, see Gunasekaran et al. , Para. 62). 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 Akhtar et al. , to have the virtual file system manager is an iSCSI target, and wherein the data mover interface agent is an iSCSI initiator, as taught by Gunasekaran et al. , to have efficient snapshot shipping to multiple clouds ( Gunasekaran et al. , Para. 76). As to claim 7, Akhtar et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the data mover interface agent and the virtual file system manager communicate with each other via non- volatile memory express (NVMe) over transmission control protocol (TCP) based on the configuration of the data mover interface agent with the portion of the virtual file system. However, Gunasekaran et al. teaches the data mover interface agent (The VTO virtualization module 116 provides a target interface (e.g., via iSCSI) for the SSMO module 114 to move data to and from the cloud infrastructure 128, see Gunasekaran et al. , Para. 62) and the virtual file system manager communicate with each other via non-volatile memory express (NVMe) over transmission control protocol (TCP) based on the configuration of the data mover interface agent with the portion of the virtual file system (SCSI commands, other types of commands and command formats can be used in other embodiments. For example, some embodiments can implement IO operations utilizing command features and functionality associated with NVM Express (NVMe ), as described in the NVMe Specification,…include NVMe over Fabric, also referred to as NVMeoF, and NVMe over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), also referred to as NVMe/TCP, see Gunasekaran et al. , Para. 42). 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 Akhtar et al. , to have the data mover interface agent and the virtual file system manager communicate with each other via non-volatile memory express (NVMe) over transmission control protocol (TCP) based on the configuration of the data mover interface agent with the portion of the virtual file system, as taught by Gunasekaran et al. , to have efficient snapshot shipping to multiple clouds ( Gunasekaran et al. , Para. 76). Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 6 rejection. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 6 rejection. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection. Response to Argument Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/27/2026 with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 2 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 3 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 4 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 5 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 6 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 7 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 8 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 9 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 10 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/970,473 Page 11 Art Unit: 2168
Prosecution Insights