DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed May 18, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 10, 12-18 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 27, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typo in the limitation “wherein the at least one current version comprises a first snapshot version, wherein the a least one previous version comprises a second snapshot version” in lines 14-15 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “at least one modified snapshot corresponding to at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the first snapshot version of the at least one computing resource and corresponding to at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the second snapshot version of the at least one computing resource.” This limitation is ambiguous. First, the language “at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the first snapshot version of the at least one computing resource” and “at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the second snapshot version of the at least one computing resource” is ambiguous. It is unclear as to whether the at least one first computing resource and second computing resource are the same as the at least one computing resource. If not, it is unclear as to how the resources are associated. It is unclear as to how at least one computing resource corresponds to both a first computing resource and a second computing resource. Second, in the language “and corresponding to at least one second computing resource” is unclear because it is not clear as to what is corresponding to the at least one second computing resource. For example, is it “the at least one modified snapshot” or something else. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, in the language “wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative that the at least one first computing resource and the at least one second computing resource are capable of being reverted according to the at least one modified snapshot” it is unclear to whether the first and second computing resources are actually reverted. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite “method of claim [[10]]…” However, there is no claim number listed in the preamble and therefore it is unclear as to what claim, claim 12 depends.
Claim 13 recites “at least one modified snapshot corresponding to at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one current snapshot version and corresponding to at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one previous snapshot version.” This limitation is ambiguous. First, the language “at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one current snapshot version” and “at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one previous snapshot version” is ambiguous. It is unclear as to whether the at least one first computing resource and second computing resource are the same as the at least one computing resource. If not, it is unclear as to how the resources are associated. It is unclear as to how at least one computing resource corresponds to both a first computing resource and a second computing resource. Second, in the language “and corresponding to at least one second computing resource” is unclear because it is not clear as to what is corresponding to the at least one second computing resource. For example, is it “the at least one modified snapshot” or something else. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 14-16 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 13.
Claim 17 recites “determining at least one first computing resource corresponding to the first version of the at least one computing resource that differs with respect to at least one second computing resource corresponding to the second version of the at least one computing resource to result in at least one determined different computing resource.” This limitation is ambiguous. First, the language “at least one first computing resource corresponding to the first version of the at least one computing resource” and “at least one second computing resource corresponding to the second version of the at least one computing resource” is ambiguous. It is unclear as to whether the at least one first computing resource and second computing resource are the same as the at least one computing resource. If not, it is unclear as to how the resources are associated. It is unclear as to how at least one computing resource corresponds to both a first computing resource and a second computing resource. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 9,934,109 B2) (‘Yoshida’) in view of Dave et al. (US 2020/0174692 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yoshida teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by at least one computing system comprising at least one processor, at least one reversion (i.e. roll back) request to facilitate at least one reversion action with respect to at least one current version of at least one computing resource to at least one previous version of the at least one computing resource (111 in Fig. 4, col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 7);
responsive to the at least one reversion request, determining, by the at least one computing system, at least one of the at least one computing resource corresponding to the at least one current version of the at least one computing resource that differs with respect to the at least one previous version of the at least one computing resource to result in at least one determined different computing resource (User checks the state of the file system after read-only mounting to roll back point B, which shows differences. For example, folder A includes the file 1 and the file 2 and the folder B includes the file 3. Note that the hatched file 2 shows that it is updated from the state of the roll back point of the index #A. Further, in more recent/current version you can see that file 2 has been deleted and therefore not included in folder A (because user inadvertently deleted it) (Fig. 5, col. 5 line 53 – col. 6 line 7; col. 6 lines 15-20 and lines 52-63);
based on the at least one determined different computing resource, facilitating, by the at least one computing system, communicating at least one reversion indication indicative of the at least one computing resource (read-only mounting to rollback is indicated/displayed to user to decide if the user wants to reselect another roll back point or whether to apply the roll back point ) (col. 6 lines 35-60); and
wherein the at least one current version comprises a first snapshot version (i.e. rollback point A or B), wherein the a least one previous version comprises a second snapshot version (i.e. rollback point C or D), wherein the first snapshot version and the second snapshot version are different (111 in Fig. 4, col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 7), and wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative that the at least one first computing resource and the at least one second computing resource are capable of being reverted (col. 6 lines 35-60).
Yoshida does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative of at least one modified snapshot corresponding to at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the first snapshot version of the at least one computing resource and corresponding to at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the second snapshot version of the at least one computing resource. Dave teaches wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative of at least one modified snapshot corresponding to at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the first snapshot version of the at least one computing resource and corresponding to at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the second snapshot version of the at least one computing resource, wherein the first snapshot version and the second snapshot version are different, and wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative that the at least one first computing resource and the at least one second computing resource are capable of being reverted according to the at least one modified snapshot (Fig. 6; paragraphs 40, 72-73, and 78-81).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yoshida to create a modified snapshot as taught by Dave to enable merging of snapshots based on the different versions of the same files and different files from different snapshots, and also ability to store different versions of the same file in a merged snapshot in each of their appropriate storage tiers based on importance (Dave, abstract, paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 2, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing resource comprises at least one storage unit, and wherein the at least one determined different computing resource comprises at least one determined different storage unit (Yoshida, Fig. 5; col. 5 lines 53-67).
With respect to claim 3, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the at least one storage unit comprises at least of: at least one file, at least one folder, or at least one volume (Yoshida Fig. 5; col. 5 lines 53-67).
With respect to claim 8, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches method of claim 1, wherein the at least one determined different computing resource is determined within a kernel space of a memory corresponding to the at least one computing system (Modern, general purpose computers have kernel spaces in memory) (Yoshida, col. 3 lines 18-21; col. 11 lines 9-12).
With respect to claim 9, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the at least one determined different computing resource comprises determining, in a reverse temporal order with respect to which the at least one current version of the at least one computing resource and the at least one previous version of the at least one computing resource were created, at least one intervening version of the at least one computing resource (Yoshida, Fig. 5, col. 5 lines 53-67).
With respect to claim 10, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches method of claim 1, wherein at least one modified snapshot comprises the first snapshot version of the at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource, a third snapshot version of at least one third computing resource of the at least one computing resource, and the second snapshot version of the at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource (Yoshida, Fig. 5, col. 5 lines 53-67; Dave, paragraphs 40, 52, 72-73, and 78-81).
With respect to claim 11, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches method of claim 10, wherein the at least one determined different computing resource is associated with metadata (MF) that corresponds to the at least one current version of the at least one computing resource, the at least one intervening version of the at least one computing resource, or the at least one previous version of the at least one computing resource (Yoshida, Figs. 5-11; col. 5 lines 53-67; col. 8 lines 1-8 and lines 56-67).
With respect to claim 12, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches method of claim 10, wherein the at least one determined different computing resource is based on the first snapshot version of the at least one computing resource, the second snapshot version of the at least one computing resource, and the third snapshot version of the at least one computing resource (Yoshida, col. 5 line 53 – col. 6 line 7; col. 6 lines 15-20 and lines 52-63; Dave, paragraphs 40, 52, 72-73, and 78-81).
With respect to claim 13, Yoshida teaches a computing system, comprising at least one processor (col. 3 lines 18-21) configured to process executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
receiving at least one reversion query request (col. 4 lines 32-35) that requests reversion information associated with performing a reversion action to revert at least one current snapshot version (i.e. rollback point A or B) of at least one computing resource to at least one previous snapshot version (i.e. rollback point C or D) of the at least one computing resource (111 in Fig. 4, col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 7);
responsive to the at least one reversion query request, determining at least one of the at least one computing resource corresponding to the at least one current snapshot version of the at least one computing resource that differs with respect to the at least one previous snapshot version of the at least one computing resource to result in at least one determined different computing resource (User checks the state of the file system after read-only mounting to roll back point B, which shows differences. For example, folder A includes the file 1 and the file 2 and the folder B includes the file 3. Note that the hatched file 2 shows that it is updated from the state of the roll back point of the index #A. Further, in more recent/current version you can see that file 2 has been deleted and therefore not included in folder A (because user inadvertently deleted it) (Fig. 5, col. 5 line 53 – col. 6 line 7; col. 6 lines 15-20 and lines 52-63); and
based on the at least one determined different computing resource, generating at least one reversion information indication indicative of the reversion information that is indicative of the at least one determined different computing resource (read-only mounting to rollback is indicated/displayed to user to decide if the user wants to reselect another roll back point or whether to apply the roll back point ) (col. 6 lines 35-60);
wherein the first current snapshot version and the previous snapshot version are different (111 in Fig. 4, col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 7), and wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative that the at least one first computing resource and the at least one second computing resource being reverted (col. 6 lines 35-60).
Yoshida does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one modified snapshot corresponding to at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one current snapshot version and corresponding to at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one previous snapshot version.
Dave teaches wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one modified snapshot corresponding to at least one first computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one current snapshot version and corresponding to at least one second computing resource of the at least one computing resource being associated with the at least one previous snapshot version, wherein the at least one current snapshot version and the at least one previous snapshot version are different, and wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of the at least one first computing resource and the at least one second computing resource being reverted according to the at least one modified snapshot (Fig. 6; paragraphs 40, 72-73, and 78-81).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yoshida to create a modified snapshot as taught by Dave to enable merging of snapshots based on the different versions of the same files and different files from different snapshots, and also ability to store different versions of the same file in a merged snapshot in each of their appropriate storage tiers based on importance (Dave, abstract, paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 14, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the computing system of claim 13, wherein the at least one previous snapshot version of the at least one computing resource comprises at least one earliest snapshot version (i.e. point A 2011/11/30) and at least one intermediate snapshot version (i.e. point B 2011/12/01), wherein the at least one earliest snapshot version corresponds to at least one earliest time, wherein the at least one current snapshot version of the at least one computing resource corresponds to at least one current time (i.e. file currently being referred to, could be point C 2011/12/02), wherein the at least one intermediate snapshot version corresponds to at least one intermediate time that is later than the at least one earliest time and earlier than the at least one current time, and wherein the reversion information corresponds to at least one of the at least one earliest snapshot version or at least one of the at least one intermediate snapshot version (Yoshida, Fig. 5, col. 1 lines 58-67, col. 5 lines 53-67).
With respect to claim 15, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the computing system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to the at least one reversion information indication, receiving at least one reversion request to facilitate at least one reversion action to revert the at least one current snapshot version of at least one computing resource according to the at least one modified snapshot (Yoshida, col. 6 lines 35-43, col. 7 lines 5-21; Dave, paragraphs 40, 72-73, and 78-81).
With respect to claim 17, Yoshida teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
responsive to at least one reversion request indicative of a first snapshot (i.e. rollback point A or B), corresponding to a first version of at least one computing resource and that is an earlier snapshot than a second snapshot corresponding to a second version of the at least one computing resource (i.e. rollback point B or C) (111 in Fig. 4, col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 7), determining at least one first computing resource corresponding to the first version of the at least one computing resource that differs with respect to at least one second computing resource corresponding to the second version of the at least one computing resource to result in at least one determined different computing resource (User checks the state of the file system after read-only mounting to roll back point B, which shows differences. For example, folder A includes the file 1 and the file 2 and the folder B includes the file 3. Note that the hatched file 2 shows that it is updated from the state of the roll back point of the index #A. Further, in more recent/current version you can see that file 2 has been deleted and therefore not included in folder A (because user inadvertently deleted it) (Fig. 5, col. 5 line 53 – col. 6 line 7; col. 6 lines 15-20 and lines 52-63); and
based on the at least one determined different computing resource, communicating at least one reversion information indication indicative of the at least one determined different computing resource (read-only mounting to rollback is indicated/displayed to user to decide if the user wants to reselect another roll back point or whether to apply the roll back point ) (col. 6 lines 35-60),
wherein the first snapshot and the second snapshot different (111 in Fig. 4, col. 4 line 59 – col. 5 line 7), and wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one result of at least one reversion action being applied to the at least one first computing resource and to the at least one second computing resource (col. 6 lines 35-60).
Yoshida does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one modified snapshot corresponding to the at least one first computing resource being associated with the first snapshot and corresponding to the at least one second computing resource being associated with the at least one second snapshot.
Dave teaches wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one modified snapshot corresponding to the at least one first computing resource being associated with the first snapshot and corresponding to the at least one second computing resource being associated with the at least one second snapshot, wherein the first snapshot and the second snapshot are different, and wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one result of at least one reversion action being applied to the at least one first computing resource and to the at least one second computing resource according to the at least one modified snapshot (Fig. 6; paragraphs 40, 72-73, and 78-81).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yoshida to create a modified snapshot as taught by Dave to enable merging of snapshots based on the different versions of the same files and different files from different snapshots, and also ability to store different versions of the same file in a merged snapshot in each of their appropriate storage tiers based on importance (Dave, abstract, paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 18, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of stored information stored in at least one storage unit corresponding to the second snapshot that would be lost as a result of the second version of the at least one computing resource being reverted to the first version of the at least one computing resource (Yoshida teaches that a user is presented read-only state of system at roll back time, which shows file changes, and includes any file/folder updates that would cause data to be lost.) (Yoshida, col. 5 lines 53-67 and
col. 6 lines 35-60).
With respect to claim 19, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one file corresponding to the second version that differs with respect to the first version (Yoshida, Fig. 5; col. 5 lines 53-67 and col. 6 lines 35-60).
With respect to claim 20, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the at least one determined different computing resource is determined based on first metadata (MF) corresponding to the first version and second metadata (MF) corresponding to the second version (Yoshida, Figs. 5-11; col. 5 lines 53-67, col. 8 lines 1-8 and lines 56-67).
Claims 4-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 9,934,109 B2) (‘Yoshida’) in view of Dave et al. (US 2020/0174692 A1), and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 20220382647 A1) (‘Lewis’).
With respect to claim 4, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the at least one determined different storage unit comprises at least one determined different file (Fig. 5 shows an example where File 2 is updated from point A to Point B.) (col. 5 lines 53-67).
Although Yoshida teaches an updated/different storage unit, and it is obvious that that likely means a block of data is different in the file, Yoshida in view of Dave does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one determined different storage unit comprises at least one determined different block.
Lewis teaches wherein the at least one determined different storage unit comprises at least one determined different block (Fig. 3, paragraphs 31, 33 and 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yoshida to determine different storage blocks as taught by Lewis to enable efficient restore that identifies and uses only the changed regions of a file for restoration, thereby reducing read accesses and bandwidth requirements, and thus, improving overall restore performance (Lewis, abstract).
With respect to claim 5, Yoshida in view of Dave and Lewis teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the determining of the at least one determined different computing resource comprises: determining at least one file corresponding to the at least one determined different storage block to result in at least one determined file (Yoshida, col. 5 lines 53-67; Lewis, Fig. 3, paragraphs 31 and 33).
With respect to claim 6, Yoshida in view of Dave and Lewis teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the at least one reversion indication is indicative of the at least one determined file (Yoshida, col. 6 lines 35-60; also, Lewis, paragraphs 33 and 40 teaches identifying and providing changed regions of a file).
With respect to claim 7, Yoshida in view of Dave and Lewis teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the at least one first computing resource would be lost in response to reverting the at least one first snapshot version to the at least one second snapshot version (Yoshida, col. 6 lines 35-60; Dave, paragraphs 40, 72-73, and 78-81).
With respect to claim 16, Yoshida in view of Dave teaches the computing system of claim 15, wherein the at least one computing resource comprises at least one file (Fig. 5; col. 5 lines 53-67), and wherein the at least one reversion information indication is indicative of at least one change (Fig. 5; col. 5 lines 53-67) corresponding to the at least one computing resource to be caused by the at least one reversion action (col. 6 lines 35-60).
Although Yoshida teaches a change to a file, and it is obvious that that likely means a block of data is different in the file, Yoshida in view of Dave does not explicitly teach a change to at least one storage block corresponding to the at least computing resource to be caused by the reversion action.
Lewis teaches determining and indicating a change to at least one storage block corresponding to the at least computing resource (file) to be caused by the reversion action (Fig. 3, paragraphs 31, 33 and 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yoshida to determine a changed storage blocks as taught by Lewis to enable efficient restore that identifies and uses only the changed regions of a file for restoration, thereby reducing read accesses and bandwidth requirements, and thus, improving overall restore performance (Lewis, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
August 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights