DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Accordingly, claims 1-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended; claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are as previously presented.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (previously presented)(US 2010/0306180 A1), hereinafter Johnson, in view of Mahalingam et al. (previously presented)(US 9,223,793 B1), hereinafter Mahalingam.
As to claim 1, Johnson discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a first user device, a first request to record a first version of content from a content source (Fig. 9, #250, 252; [0174], Director device receives a request to store, i.e. record, an original file, i.e. a first version of content originating from endpoint device A, i.e. a content source.);
receiving, from a second user device, a second request to record a second version of the content from the content source (Fig. 9, #256-260; [0175], [0176], The director device receives a second request to record an edited version of the file, i.e. a second version of the content, that was originally from the content source, i.e. from endpoint device A.), wherein the first version and the second version comprise copies of the content recorded respectively for the first user device and the second user device (Fig. 9; [0010], [0177], Revisions of the content specific to each of endpoint device A and endpoint device B can be stored based on differing edits from the respective devices.);
storing, at a master node multiple revisions of the content ([0128], [0168]; Director device, i.e. a master node, stores all available revisions of content.);
based on a third request for the first version of the content, i.e. as a revision file request, from the first user device (Fig. 9, #262; [0177], Another request is received from endpoint device A, this time to retrieve the original file/first version of the content.), a
sending, to the first user device, the requested file (Fig. 9, #264, 266; [0177], The requested file is retrieved and sent to the requesting entity, in this example, endpoint device A.).
Johnson does not disclose storing, at a master node based on a comparison between the first version of the content and the second version of the content, a master file that includes one instance of each of one or more unique portions of the content and one instance of each of one or more common portions of the content;
generating, based on a third request for the first version of the content from the first user device, a reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content; and
sending, to the first user device, the reconstructed file.
Although Johnson does disclose an ability to deduplicate content stored in the director device/master node such that data is removed and stored as only a single instance(Fig. 4, #112; [0074], [0125]-[0126]).
However, Mahalingam discloses storing, at a master node based on a comparison between the first version of the content and the second version of the content (Figs. 3A-3C and 6; Col. 6, Lines 6-30; Col. 9, Lines 30-48; A first version of a file (version X), i.e. a first version of the content, is compared to a second version of the file (version X+1), i.e. a second version of the content to identify unique and matching blocks of data between them.), a master file that includes one instance of each of one or more unique portions of the content and one instance of each of one or more common portions of the content (Figs. 4 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 54-62; Col. 5, Lines 6-15; Col. 8, Lines 19-29, A master file is stored in remote storage comprising only individual instances of the unique blocks from each version.);
generating, based on a third request for the first version of the content , a reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content (Fig. 5; Col. 8, Lines 30-53, The master file is read to obtain the corresponding blocks for a requested version of content which is then generated into a restored file.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Johnson with the teachings of Mahalingam by modifying Johnson such that instead of the director device receiving and then storing to archive storage each entire version of content, that the deduplication module of the director device is modified to deduplicate received content versions like is done by the CDP module using local storage in Mahalingam, and then store all unique blocks of content in a master file in the archive storage like is done with the remote storage of Mahalingam by comparing the similarities and differences to deduplicate common data among versions of the same file being stored. It would have then been obvious to modify Johnson to use the director device to generate a reconstructed file from the master file, like is done in Mahalingam, and return the reconstructed file to the requesting user device of Johnson instead of more primitively retrieving and sending back the version stored as a whole. Thus, as combined, rendering obvious the entirety of the claim. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the amount of data usage and requirements for the archive storage of Johnson, like with the remote storage of Mahalingam (Mahalingam, Col. 5, Lines 12-18; Col. 6, Lines 10-14).
As to claim 8, Johnson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to ([0018], [0188]):
receive, from a first user device, a first request to record a first version of content from a content source (Fig. 9, #250, 252; [0174], Director device receives a request to store, i.e. record, an original file, i.e. a first version of content originating from endpoint device A, i.e. a content source.);
receive, from a second user device, a second request to record a second version of the content from the content source (Fig. 9, #256-260; [0175], [0176], The director device receives a second request to record an edited version of the file, i.e. a second version of the content, that was originally from the content source, i.e. from endpoint device A.), wherein the first version and the second version comprise copies of the content recorded respectively for the first user device and the second user device (Fig. 9; [0010], [0177], Revisions of the content specific to each of endpoint device A and endpoint device B can be stored based on differing edits from the respective devices.);
store, at a master node multiple revisions of the content ([0128], [0168]; Director device, i.e. a master node, stores all available revisions of content.);
based on a third request for the first version of the content, i.e. as a revision file request, from the first user device (Fig. 9, #262; [0177], Another request is received from endpoint device A, this time to retrieve the original file/first version of the content.); and
send, to the first user device, the requested file (Fig. 9, #264, 266; [0177], The requested file is retrieved and sent to the requesting entity, in this example, endpoint device A.).
Johnson does not disclose storing, at a master node based on a comparison between the first version of the content and the second version of the content, a master file that includes one instance of each of one or more unique portions of the content and one instance of each of one or more common portions of the content;
generating, based on a third request for the first version of the content from the first user device, a reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content; and
sending, to the first user device, the reconstructed file.
Although Johnson does disclose an ability to deduplicate content stored in the director device/master node such that data is removed and stored as only a single instance(Fig. 4, #112; [0074], [0125]-[0126]).
However, Mahalingam discloses storing, at a master node based on a comparison between the first version of the content and the second version of the content (Figs. 3A-3C and 6; Col. 6, Lines 6-30; Col. 9, Lines 30-48; A first version of a file (version X), i.e. a first version of the content, is compared to a second version of the file (version X+1), i.e. a second version of the content to identify unique and matching blocks of data between them.), a master file that includes one instance of each of one or more unique portions of the content and one instance of each of one or more common portions of the content (Figs. 4 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 54-62; Col. 5, Lines 6-15; Col. 8, Lines 19-29, A master file is stored in remote storage comprising only individual instances of the unique blocks from each version.);
generating, based on a third request for the first version of the content , a reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content (Fig. 5; Col. 8, Lines 30-53, The master file is read to obtain the corresponding blocks for a requested version of content which is then generated into a restored file.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Johnson with the teachings of Mahalingam by modifying Johnson such that instead of the director device receiving and then storing to archive storage each entire version of content, that the deduplication module of the director device is modified to deduplicate received content versions like is done by the CDP module using local storage in Mahalingam, and then store all unique blocks of content in a master file in the archive storage like is done with the remote storage of Mahalingam by comparing the similarities and differences to deduplicate common data among versions of the same file being stored. It would have then been obvious to modify Johnson to use the director device to generate a reconstructed file from the master file, like is done in Mahalingam, and return the reconstructed file to the requesting user device of Johnson instead of more primitively retrieving and sending back the version stored as a whole. Thus, as combined, rendering obvious the entirety of the claim. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the amount of data usage and requirements for the archive storage of Johnson, like with the remote storage of Mahalingam (Mahalingam, Col. 5, Lines 12-18; Col. 6, Lines 10-14).
As to claim 15, Johnson discloses a system comprising:
a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to (Fig. 1, #14; Fig. 4; [0020], [0040]):
receive, from a first user device, a first request to record a first version of content from a content source(Fig. 9, #250, 252; [0174], Director device receives a request to store, i.e. record, an original file, i.e. a first version of content originating from endpoint device A, i.e. a content source.);
receive, from a second user device, a second request to record a second version of the content from the content source (Fig. 9, #256-260; [0175], [0176], The director device receives a second request to record an edited version of the file, i.e. a second version of the content, that was originally from the content source, i.e. from endpoint device A.), wherein the first version and the second version comprise copies of the content recorded respectively for the first user device and the second user device (Fig. 9; [0010], [0177], Revisions of the content specific to each of endpoint device A and endpoint device B can be stored based on differing edits from the respective devices.);
store, at a master node multiple revisions of the content ([0128], [0168]; Director device, i.e. a master node, stores all available revisions of content.);
based on a third request for the first version of the content, i.e. as a revision file request, from the first user device (Fig. 9, #262; [0177], Another request is received from endpoint device A, this time to retrieve the original file/first version of the content.); and
send, to the first user device, the requested file (Fig. 9, #264, 266; [0177], The requested file is retrieved and sent to the requesting entity, in this example, endpoint device A.); and
the first user device configured to send the first request to record the first version of content and the third request for the first version of the content (Fig. 9, #250 and 262; [0174], [0177]).
Johnson does not disclose storing, at a master node based on a comparison between the first version of the content and the second version of the content, a master file that includes one instance of each of one or more unique portions of the content and one instance of each of one or more common portions of the content;
generating, based on a third request for the first version of the content from the first user device, a reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content; and
sending, to the first user device, the reconstructed file.
Although Johnson does disclose an ability to deduplicate content stored in the director device/master node such that data is removed and stored as only a single instance(Fig. 4, #112; [0074], [0125]-[0126]).
However, Mahalingam discloses storing, at a master node based on a comparison between the first version of the content and the second version of the content (Figs. 3A-3C and 6; Col. 6, Lines 6-30; Col. 9, Lines 30-48; A first version of a file (version X), i.e. a first version of the content, is compared to a second version of the file (version X+1), i.e. a second version of the content to identify unique and matching blocks of data between them.), a master file that includes one instance of each of one or more unique portions of the content and one instance of each of one or more common portions of the content (Figs. 4 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 54-62; Col. 5, Lines 6-15; Col. 8, Lines 19-29, A master file is stored in remote storage comprising only individual instances of the unique blocks from each version.);
generating, based on a third request for the first version of the content , a reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content (Fig. 5; Col. 8, Lines 30-53, The master file is read to obtain the corresponding blocks for a requested version of content which is then generated into a restored file.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Johnson with the teachings of Mahalingam by modifying Johnson such that instead of the director device receiving and then storing to archive storage each entire version of content, that the deduplication module of the director device is modified to deduplicate received content versions like is done by the CDP module using local storage in Mahalingam, and then store all unique blocks of content in a master file in the archive storage like is done with the remote storage of Mahalingam by comparing the similarities and differences to deduplicate common data among versions of the same file being stored. It would have then been obvious to modify Johnson to use the director device to generate a reconstructed file from the master file, like is done in Mahalingam, and return the reconstructed file to the requesting user device of Johnson instead of more primitively retrieving and sending back the version stored as a whole. Thus, as combined, rendering obvious the entirety of the claim. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the amount of data usage and requirements for the archive storage of Johnson, like with the remote storage of Mahalingam (Mahalingam, Col. 5, Lines 12-18; Col. 6, Lines 10-14).
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 15 above. In addition, Johnson, as previously modified with Mahalingam, discloses determining, based on an index file, the portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content (Mahalingam, Fig. 5; Col. 8, Lines 30-40; A version map file for the requested version of content, i.e. an index file, is used to determine the portions of the master file 220 needed to restore the requested version. This is used for any version.).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 9, and 16 above. In addition, Johnson, as previously modified with Mahalingam, discloses generating the index file that identifies the portions of the master file associated with the first version of the content (Mahalingam, Figs. 3A-3C, #210B; Col. 7, Lines 35-38; Col. 8, Lines 1-23, E.g. Appending master block references to version map file 210B to generate it and store it at local storage 120, i.e. an edge node.).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 9, and 16 above. In addition, Johnson, as previously modified with Mahalingam, discloses storing the index file at an edge node associated with the first user device (Mahalingam, Figs. 3A-3C, #210B; Col. 7, Lines 35-38; Col. 8, Lines 1-23, E.g. Appending master block references to version map file 210B to generate it and store it at local storage 120, i.e. an edge node. Since, as modified with Johnson, this would be connected with the director device like the CDP module of Mahalingam, and is thus associated with the first user device that can initiate requests thereto.).
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 15 above. In addition, Johnson, as previously modified with Mahalingam, discloses storing the reconstructed file at an edge node associated with the first user device (Mahalingam, Fig. 5, #110; Col. 8, Lines 30-47; E.g. Generating restored file at storage volume 110, i.e. an edge node. Since, as modified with Johnson, this would be connected with the director device like the CDP module of Mahalingam, and is thus associated with the first user device that can initiate requests thereto.).
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 15 above. In addition, Johnson, as previously modified with Mahalingam, discloses generating, based on a fourth request for the second version of the content from the second user device, a second reconstructed file that includes portions of the master file associated with the second version of the content (Johnson, Fig. 9, #262-266; [0178], As readily apparent, any user device can request a desired version of the content and it is sent thereto from the director device.; Mahalingam, Fig. 5; Col. 8, Lines 30-47, As previously combined, the requested version is reconstructed and sent to the requesting device of Johnson using the techniques of Mahalingam.); and
sending, to the second user device, the second reconstructed file (Johnson, Fig. 9, #262-266; [0178], As readily apparent, any user device can request a desired version of the content and it is sent thereto from the director device.).
As to claims 7, 14, and 21, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 15 above. In addition, Johnson, as previously modified with Mahalingam, discloses wherein each of the one or more unique portions of the content and the one or more and the one or more common portions of the content include a unique fragment of the content (Mahalingam, Figs. 3A-3E; Col. 6, Lines 56-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-5; As previously set forth, the master file contains a single instance of all unique and common blocks from each version. Thus each block in the master file is a unique, non-duplicate, block. Each block is deduplicated on a byte, i.e. fragment level. Thus the unique blocks each include unique fragments (bytes).).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. For Examiner’s response, see discussion below:
(a) Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, with respect to the rejections of claims 15-21 under 35 USC §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 15-21 under 35 USC §101 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
(b) At page 9, with respect to the rejections of independents claim 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC §103, Applicant argues that neither Johnson nor Mahalingam disclose or suggest the steps regarding receiving, from a first user device and receiving, from a second user device as claimed. Applicant argues that in Johnson, the second version of the file is an edit of the original file, not a recording of content from a content source. Applicant argues that the two versions are not copies of the same content recorded from a content source.
As to (b), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the example of Fig. 9 of Johnson, user endpoint device A is a content source for an original file. The claims do not specify what the content source is, any details of how it is accessed, or any details that make a version of content from a content source. Thus, the original file, as a whole, is a first version of content from a content source comprising the original content from the content source. Endpoint device B then takes that same content from the content source, i.e. the original version of the file, and makes an edit to record a second version of the content from the content source as claimed. The director device, i.e. a master node, stores both copies for each user endpoint device for future retrieval by those devices.
Applicant’s argument that the two versions are not copies of the same content recorded from a content source does not make sense given the claimed language. The claim does not require the same content exactly, hence why there are two versions claimed, and the requirement to check for common and unique portions later in the claim. However, both copies of Johnson are based on the same original file to form two versions of the same base data as is claimed. As stated in the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 15 above, Johnson discloses
(c) At page 9, with respect to the rejections of independents claim 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC §103, Applicant argues that Mahalingam does not disclose a content source from which content is recorded.
As to (c), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As discussed in (b), above, Johnson discloses the content source as claimed. As such, Applicant’s arguments to Mahalingam are moot.
(d) At page 10, with respect to the rejections of independents claim 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC §103, Applicant argues that the combination of Johnson and Mahalingam does not cure the deficiencies previously argued. Applicant argues that the proposed combination would not transform file revisions into copies of content recorded from a content source for different user devices.
As to (d), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The combination is not required to teach the content source as claimed, as Johnson already discloses these features as previously discussed.
(e) At pages 10-12, with respect to the rejections of independents claim 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC §103, Applicant argues that the combination of references is improper. Applicant argues that the resulting combination would produce a system in which Johnson’s director device applied Mahalingam’s de-duplication to the original and edited file versions, and would not arrive at a system that records content from a content source and generates copied for different user devices.
As to (e), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As previously set forth, Johnson fully discloses the receiving requests to record versions of content from the content source. The combination does not impact this teaching of Johnson, and applicant’s arguments to the combination in this regard are therefore irrelevant and moot. The combination with Mahalingam renders obvious comparisons and forming a master file of unique and common portions as claimed. When combined, as set forth in the rejections above, render obvious the claim as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stacey et al. (US 9,152,628 B1) discloses reducing space for files in a server by recording a baseline version of unshared data blocks is created in the file server, and then the baseline version is space reduced by conversion to a stub version of shared data blocks, and constructing requested versions from the blocks (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E RICHARDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/James E Richardson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights