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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 06/18/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below. To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below.
/BORIS GORNEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
Step 1:
The claimed system (claims 1-7), method (claims 8-14), , and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claims 15-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (8 and 15) recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind and/or manually with a pen and a piece of paper:
Identify a portion of the metadata comprising identification information
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite the use of:
a storage system controller, operatively coupled to the plurality of storage devices, comprising a processing device configured to: store, in one or more of the plurality of storage devices of a target storage system, a snapshot of metadata of a file system located on a source storage system;
a query/response component: to access data stored in the file system located on the source storage system;
… the data stored in the file system located on the storage system; and
retrieve the data stored in the file system located on the source storage system by providing the source storage system with the identification information of the data.
The processor and a computer merely executes the abstract steps. The database is used in a routine storage and retrieval. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, which the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B) identifies the list of cases in MPEP 2106. 05(d)(II) as available bases.
The claims recite only functional, providing a match for retrieval language (“storing”, “receiving”, “retrieving”…), without specifying any technical mechanism for performing these operations in a non-conventional manner. Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 5 (12 and 19) recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind and/or manually with a pen and a piece of paper:
identify corresponding portions of the metadata comprising corresponding identification information for the particular pieces of data
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite the use of:
receive one or more readahead policies for particular pieces of data stored in the file system;
retrieve the particular pieces of data stored in the file system by providing the source storage system with the corresponding identification information;
store the particular pieces of data in a set of storage devices of the plurality of storage devices.
The processor and a computer merely executes the abstract steps. The database is used in a routine storage and retrieval. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, which the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The claims recite only functional, providing a match for retrieval language (“storing”, “receiving”, “retrieving”…), without specifying any technical mechanism for performing these operations in a non-conventional manner. Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 6 (13 and 20) recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind and/or manually with a pen and a piece of paper:
identify corresponding portions of the metadata comprising corresponding identification information for the particular pieces of data;
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite the use of:
retrieve the one or more pieces of data stored in the file system by providing the source storage system with the corresponding identification information;
store the one or more pieces of data in a set of storage devices of the plurality of storage devices
The processor and a computer merely executes the abstract steps. The database is used in a routine retrieval and storage. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, which the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B) identifies the list of cases in MPEP 2106. 05(d)(II) as available bases.
The claims recite only functional, providing a match for retrieval language (“storing”, and “retrieving”…), without specifying any technical mechanism for performing these operations in a non-conventional manner. Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claim 2 (9 and 16): receive, from the source storage system, a subsequent snapshot comprising changes to the metadata of the snapshot; and
transfer the changes to the metadata from the subsequent snapshot as an atomic update to the metadata.
Claim 3 (10 and 17): wherein the metadata of the file system is stored in the one or more of the plurality of storage devices while avoiding storing underlying data of the file system in the storage system. This merely determines where data is being stored. This does not change the nature of the abstract ide as well as does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
Claim 4 (11 and 18): wherein the processing device is further configured to: service metadata-only operations using the metadata of the file system stored in the one or more of the plurality of storage devices while avoiding accessing the source storage system. This merely consider the service metadata operations. This does not change the nature of the abstract ide as well as does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
Claim 7 (14): to transmit the snapshot of the metadata to a second storage system, wherein the snapshot of the metadata enables the second storage system to access the data stored in the file system using the metadata. This merely takes a snapshot of the metadata. This does not change the nature of the abstract ide as well as does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
Step 2B (claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14 and 16-18):
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over George (US Pub. 2023/0385153) in view of Singhal (WO2023/244601).
Regarding claim 1, George discloses a storage system comprising: a plurality of storage devices (Fig. 4A, storage devices); and
a storage system controller (Fig 4D, a storage management), operatively coupled to the plurality of storage devices, comprising a processing device configured to: store, in one or more of the plurality of storage devices of a target storage system, a snapshot of metadata of a file system located on a source storage system (Fig. 2E, 202: source storage; 216: target storage; 210: snapshot metadata);
receive a request to access data stored in the file system located on the source storage system (¶ [0056], Fig. 4A, receiving a request “406” for restores access information as data from the source snapshot) ;
retrieve, by the target storage system, the data stored in the file system located on the source storage system by providing the source storage system with the identification information of the data (¶ [0056], Fig. 4B, retrieves metadata 420 associated with the source snapshot. The metadata 420 comprises a snapshot file system 450 of the source snapshot).
While George discloses object store snapshot read functionality as part of restoring the directory. This functionality is used to identify and retrieve directory blocks of the directory from the objects storing the snapshot data (backup data) of the directory in the object store, Singhal further discloses identify at least a portion of the metadata comprising identification information of the data in the file system located on the storage system (¶ [0086], the source file system may identify the differences (i.e., deltas) between the first and second snapshots, which include the B-tree keys and values and their associated file data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Singhal into George to identify the deltas of the update to the storage for fast replication.
Regarding claim 2, George in view of Singhal discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive, from the source storage system, a subsequent snapshot comprising changes to the metadata of the snapshot (Singhal, ¶ [0086], receiving the changes/delta of the snapshot); and
transfer the changes to the metadata from the subsequent snapshot as an atomic update to the metadata (Singhal, ¶[0048], allow atomic update to maintain consistency).
Regarding claim 3, George in view of Singhal discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the metadata of the file system is stored in the one or more of the plurality of storage devices while avoiding storing underlying data of the file system in the storage system (George Fig. 4A, metadata/data/file stored in multiple places/devices).
Regarding claim 4, George in view of Singhal discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: service metadata-only operations using the metadata of the file system stored in the one or more of the plurality of storage devices while avoiding accessing the source storage system (George, ¶ [0061], read only operation to a target system would ensure no access to a source system).
Regarding claim 5, George in view of Singhal discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive one or more readahead policies for particular pieces of data stored in the file system (this is old and well known as mentioned in a Linux manual, for instance);
identify corresponding portions of the metadata comprising corresponding identification information for the particular pieces of data (Singhal, ¶ [0086], the source file system may identify the differences (i.e., deltas) between the first and second snapshots, which include the B-tree keys and values and their associated file data);
retrieve the particular pieces of data stored in the file system by providing the source storage system with the corresponding identification information (George, ¶ [0056], Fig. 4B, retrieves metadata 420 associated with the source snapshot. The metadata 420 comprises a snapshot file system 450 of the source snapshot); and
store the particular pieces of data in a set of storage devices of the plurality of storage devices (George, ¶ [0056], would be able to replicate when accessing).
Regarding claim 6, George in view of Singhal discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: identify corresponding portions of the metadata comprising corresponding identification information for one or more pieces of data stored in the file system based on corresponding characteristics for the one or more pieces of data (George, ¶ [0050, backup transfer to an object store to record any metadata of a current transfer, which includes a transfer type, transfer snapshot, transfer characteristics); retrieve the one or more pieces of data stored in the file system by providing the source storage system with the corresponding identification information (G, ¶ [0056], Fig. 4B, retrieves metadata 420 associated with the source snapshot); and store the one or more pieces of data in a set of storage devices of the plurality of storage devices (George, ¶ [0056], would able to replicate when accessing).
Regarding claim 7, George in view of Singhal discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further to: transmit the snapshot of the metadata to a second storage system, wherein the snapshot of the metadata enables the second storage system to access the data stored in the file system using the metadata (¶ [0109], computing devices 1006(1)-1006(n) can be primary or local storage controllers or secondary or remote storage controllers that provide client devices 1008(1)-1008(n) with access to data stored within data storage devices 1010(1)-1010(n) and storage devices of a remote object store).
Regarding claims 8-14, see discussion of claims 1-7 above for the same reason of rejection.
Regarding claims 15-20, see discussion of claims 1-6 above for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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 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 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights