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
The claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/13/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,641. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant applicant is anticipated by the Patent. The ‘641 Patent discloses each and every limitations of the instant application with additional limitations of the two generating steps. Therefore, the claims 1-20 of the instant application is anticipated by claims 1-20 of the Patent.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims 1-20 are allowed over prior arts.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent Claims 1, 13 and 18 define the distinct features, “receiving a request to download data associated with one or more snapshots stored in a first cloud environment; decrypting, in response to the request, the data within the first cloud environment; writing the decrypted data to an export storage account in a second cloud environment; and transmitting, to a computing device associated with the request, an encrypted download link that is operable to download the decrypted data from the export storage account.”. The closest prior art, Taylor et al. (US Patent No 9,824,095), discloses the generating of snapshots and cloud files, with associated incremental data and metadata, for backup and distribution, and Liu et al. (US Pub No 2022/0188194), discloses the uploading of encrypted copy of incremental snapshots to a cloud storage and updating related metadata, and allowing the downloading of the snapshots, which fails to suggest the claimed limitations as mentioned above in combination with other claimed elements as a whole. Specifically, the prior arts doesn’t disclose the transmitting of an encrypted download link to the decrypted data from the export storage account that in combination with the receiving a request to download, decrypting and writing step above as a whole. Therefore, the above features in conjunction with all other limitations of the claim and dependent claims are hereby allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, EDWARDS LINGLAN can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/Chau Le/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a request to download data associated with one or more snapshots stored in a first cloud environment;
decrypting, in response to the request, the data within the first cloud environment;
writing the decrypted data to an export storage account in a second cloud environment; and
transmitting, to a computing device associated with the request, an encrypted download link that is operable to download the decrypted data from the export storage account.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving credentials associated with the computing device after transmitting the encrypted download link to the computing device, wherein the encrypted download link is operable to direct, when selected, the computing device to an interface for inputting the credentials.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: verifying the credentials associated with the computing device; and decrypting, based at least in part on a verification of the credentials, the encrypted download link, wherein the decrypted download link directs the computing device to the decrypted data in the export storage account.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a download link operable to download the decrypted data from the export storage account based at least in part on writing the decrypted data to the export storage account; and encrypting the download link before transmitting the encrypted download link to the computing device.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: converting, based at least in part on decrypting the data, a format of the data from a first format associated with the first cloud environment to a second format associated with the computing device, wherein the decrypted data is written to the export storage account in the second format.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein writing the decrypted data to the export storage account in the second cloud environment is based at least in part on first storage credentials associated with the export storage account corresponding to second credentials associated with the request to download the data.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating the export storage account in the second cloud environment based at least in part on credentials associated with the request to download the data, wherein writing the decrypted data to the export storage account is based at least in part on generating the export storage account.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the export storage account is configured to store data for one or more computing systems located within a same geographical region, the one or more computing systems comprising a computing system associated with the computing device.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring a time-to-live period for the decrypted data in the export storage account, wherein the time-to-live period is configured to start at a first time at which the decrypted data is written to the export storage account, and wherein the decrypted data is configured to be deleted from the export storage account in response to an expiration of the time-to-live period.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein writing the decrypted data to the export storage account comprises: writing the decrypted data to the export storage account in a compressed format.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the data subject to the request to download corresponds to a first version of a file, the first version associated with an earlier point-in-time than a second version of the file that is stored in a third cloud environment associated with the computing device.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the one or more snapshots of computing resources from a third cloud environment that is associated with the computing device; and storing the one or more snapshots in the first cloud environment after obtaining the one or more snapshots.
Prosecution Insights