DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to Application filed 01/17/2025
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application is claimed and considered as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/366,053 filed 08/07/2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/389,395 filed 07/30/2021. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 07/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed by Applicant on 01/17/2025 and 02/27/2025 have been considered. Copies of the considered IDS(s) are enclosed with this Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding paragraph [0001], the U.S. Patent Application No. 18/366,053 has been patented, its information should be supplemented by its patent information (e.g., Patent No. 12,229,082). In addition, the parent application that was patented as Patent No. 11,720,525 should be supplemented with its application information (e.g., U.S. Patent Application No. 17/389,395).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,720,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of the earlier patent anticipates, suggests or render obvious to all limitations as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 of this application.
In particular, the mapping of the rejection is as follows:
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,720,525
1. A method, comprising:
Claim 16 (including all limitations of claim 1 and claim 16)
1. A method, comprising
maintaining a restore time metric set to a value used to determine whether to archive snapshots from a storage tier to an archival storage tier;
identifying a snapshot for archive from a storage tier to an archival storage tier of a remote object store; (see claim 1)
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots;
in response to a scanner identifying a latest snapshot and a response time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding the latest snapshot from being included within a set of candidate snapshot identified by the scanner for archival; (see Claim 16)
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots; and
in response to the restore time metric being set to zero value, including the latest snapshot within the set of candidate snapshot; (see Claim 16)
processing the set of candidate snapshots to selective archive one or more candidate snapshots of the set of candidate snapshots from the storage tier to the archival storage tier.
identifying one or more objects eligible for archive from the storage tier to the archival storage tier, the one or more objects comprising snapshot data of the snapshot; and
archiving the one or more objects from the storage tiers to the archival storage tier. (see Claim 1)
Similarly,
Claim 8 rejected by Claim 16
Claim 15 rejected by Claim 16
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “selective” in line 8 should be “selectively” for being in better form.
Claim 3 is objected for being a duplicate of claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, the term “selective” in line 11 should be “selectively” for being in better form.
Claim 10 is objected for being a duplicate of claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, the term “causes” in line 2 should be “cause” (i.e., the instructions, when executed by a machine, cause…), and the term “selective” in line 10 should be “selectively” for being in better form.
Claim 17 is objected for being a duplicate of claim 16.
Other dependent claims are objected as incorporating the informality of the objected independent claims 1, 8 and 15 upon which they depend correspondingly.
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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the recited feature “processing the set of candidate snapshots to selective archive one or more candidate snapshot of the set of candidate snapshots from the storage tier to the archival storage tier” appears to be not supportive by the disclosure (see Fig. 4 and [0030] for selectively archiving objects of each candidate snapshot). The specification discloses selectively archiving a subset of objects of each candidate snapshot of the plurality of candidate snapshots identified for archival rather than selectively archiving a subset of candidate snapshots of the plurality of candidate snapshots as recited. In addition, it is unclear how “a set of candidate snapshot” is generated/identified in the claimed process.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17, it is unclear what is “an undefined value” as recited. The specification only disclosed “the restore time metric is undefined or set to a zero value” (see [0031, and [0093]-[0095]).
Other dependent claims are rejected as incorporating and failing to resolve the deficiencies of rejected independent claims 1, 8 and 15 upon which they depend correspondingly.
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 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of analyzing data without significantly more.
The claims recite an abstract idea of determining a set of candidate snapshot for archival based on broadly recited steps of maintaining, including, excluding, processing, which are broadly recited steps/concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and directed to mental processes grouping of abstract ideas . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other additional elements including genetic computer components and common computer functionality (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) for implementing the abstract idea are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements include only generic/common computer components (e.g., memory, processor, program instructions, etc.) and generic/common computer functions (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.), which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Abstract idea analysis as follows:
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant claims, claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. a process), claim 8 is directed to a computing device (i.e., a machine), and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (i.e., an article of manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter).
Step 2a Prong 1 (claims 1, 8 and 15):
The following limitations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 are abstract ideas that fall under mental processes:
maintaining a restore time metric set to a value used to determine whether to archive snapshots from a storage tier to an archival storage tier (this step of maintaining as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper through mental processes, e.g., determining on a metric to be used);
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots (this step of excluding as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper through mental processes, e.g., planning on what to do);
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots (this step of including as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper through mental processes, e.g., planning on what to do); and
processing the set of candidate snapshots to selective archive one or more candidate snapshots of the set of candidate snapshots from the storage tier to the archival storage tier (this step of processing as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper though mental processes, e.g., planning on what to do).
All the limitations above are mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2 (Claims 1, 8 and 15):
The following limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 are additional elements:
a memory comprising instructions (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea),
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to perform operations comprising (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea), and
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for performing a method, which, when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations comprising (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or insignificant extra-solution activity for implementing or applying the abstract. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2b (Claims 1, 8 and 15):
The following limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 are additional elements:
a memory comprising instructions (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea),
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to perform operations comprising (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea), and
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for performing a method, which, when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations comprising (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, claims 2, 9 and 16 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. As such, claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, claims 2, 9 and 16 includes following additional elements:
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to an undefined value, designating objects comprising snapshots data of snapshots within the storage tier as eligible for being archived to the archival storage tier (the step of designating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper through mental processes, e.g., determining that objects comprising snapshots data are eligible for being archived if the value of the restore time metric being set to an undefined value (i.e., thinking/planning)).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, claims 3, 10 and 17 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. As such, claims 3, 10 and 17 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, claims 3, 10 and 17 includes following additional elements:
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to an undefined value, designating objects comprising snapshots data of snapshots within the storage tier as eligible for being archived to the archival storage tier (the step of designating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper through mental processes, e.g., determining that objects comprising snapshots data are eligible for being archived if the value of the restore time metric being set to an undefined value (i.e., thinking/planning)).
These are additional elements directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, claims 4, 11 and 18 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. As such, claims 4, 11 and 18 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, claims 4, 11 and 18 includes following additional elements:
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to the zero value, designating objects comprising snapshots data of snapshots within the storage tier as eligible for being archived to the archival storage tier (the step of designating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in a human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper through mental processes, e.g., determining that objects comprising snapshots data are eligible for being archived if the value of the restore time value being set to the zero value (i.e., thinking/planning)).
These are additional elements directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity for implementing the abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 (effective filing date 07/30/2021) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borate et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,755,416, effectively filed date 01/08/2021), and further in view of Hinman (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0157504, Publication date 05/27/2021).
As to claim 1, Borate et al. teaches:
“A method” (see Borate et al., Abstract and Fig. 1), comprising:
“maintaining a restore time metric set to a value used to determine whether to archive snapshots from a storage tier to an archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 33-38] wherein the predefined amount of time after that warm snapshots are transitioned to one or more cold snapshots (i.e., snapshots are moving from a warm-tier data store (i.e., a storage tier) to a cold-tier data store (i.e., an archival storage tier) (see [column 2, line 40 to column 3, line 39]) as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a restore time metric as recited);
“processing the set of candidate snapshots to selective archive one or more candidate snapshots of the set of candidate snapshots from the storage tier to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 9-29] for identifying and transmitting a subset of objects associated with snapshots being transitioned from warm snapshot into cold snapshot from the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) to the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier)).
However, Borate et al. does not explicitly teach a metric that can include/exclude (i.e., keep/remove) a latest snapshot as recited as follows:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots;
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots”.
On the other hand, Hinman explicitly teaches a metric that can include/exclude (i.e., keep/remove) a latest snapshot as recited as follows:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots” (see Hinman, [0040] and [0045] for an indication of the minimum number of snapshots to retain, even if the snapshots have expired; if the minimum number of snapshots is set to non-zero (e.g., one or more), the latest snapshot even expired but is excluded from a set of candidate snapshot for being removed from the repository);
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots” (see Hinman, [0040] for an indication of the minimum number of snapshots to retain, even if the snapshots have expired; if the minimum number of snapshots is set to zero, the latest snapshot (i.e., the most recent snapshot) if expired will be included in a set of candidate snapshot for being removed from the repository).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hinman’s teaching to Borate et al.’s system by implementing different retention parameters for managing snapshots in a data store or storage tier. Ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Borate et al. with an effective way to maintain a minimum number of most recent snapshots from being removed or archived to another storage tier. In addition, both of the references (Borate et al. and Hinman) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, a system for managing snapshots. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
As to claim 8, Borate et al. teaches:
“A computing device” (see Borate et al., Abstract and Fig. 1) comprising:
“a memory comprising instructions” (see Borate et al., Fig. 9 for memory 904); and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to perform operations comprising (see Borate et al., Fig. 9 for processor 902):
“maintaining a restore time metric set to a value used to determine whether to archive snapshots from a storage tier to an archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 33-38] wherein the predefined amount of time after that warm snapshots are transitioned to one or more cold snapshots (i.e., snapshots are moving from a warm-tier data store (i.e., a storage tier) to a cold-tier data store (i.e., an archival storage tier) (see [column 2, line 40 to column 3, line 39]) as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a restore time metric as recited);
“processing the set of candidate snapshots to selective archive one or more candidate snapshots of the set of candidate snapshots from the storage tier to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 9-29] for identifying and transmitting a subset of objects associated with snapshots being transitioned from warm snapshot into cold snapshot from the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) to the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier)).
However, Borate et al. does not explicitly teach a metric that can include/exclude (i.e., keep/remove) a latest snapshot as recited as follows:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots;
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots”.
On the other hand, Hinman explicitly teaches a metric that can include/exclude (i.e., keep/remove) a latest snapshot as recited as follows:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots” (see Hinman, [0040] and [0045] for an indication of the minimum number of snapshots to retain, even if the snapshots have expired; if the minimum number of snapshots is set to non-zero (e.g., one or more), the latest snapshot even expired but is excluded from a set of candidate snapshot for being removed from the repository);
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots” (see Hinman, [0040] for an indication of the minimum number of snapshots to retain, even if the snapshots have expired; if the minimum number of snapshots is set to zero, the latest snapshot (i.e., the most recent snapshot) if expired will be included in a set of candidate snapshot for being removed from the repository).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hinman’s teaching to Borate et al.’s system by implementing different retention parameters for managing snapshots in a data store or storage tier. Ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Borate et al. with an effective way to maintain a minimum number of most recent snapshots from being removed or archived to another storage tier. In addition, both of the references (Borate et al. and Hinman) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, a system for managing snapshots. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
As to claim 15, Borate et al. teaches:
“A non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions for performing a method, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations comprising” (see Borate et al., Abstract, Fig. 1 and Fig. 9):
“maintaining a restore time metric set to a value used to determine whether to archive snapshots from a storage tier to an archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 33-38] wherein the predefined amount of time after that warm snapshots are transitioned to one or more cold snapshots (i.e., snapshots are moving from a warm-tier data store (i.e., a storage tier) to a cold-tier data store (i.e., an archival storage tier) (see [column 2, line 40 to column 3, line 39]) as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a restore time metric as recited);
“processing the set of candidate snapshots to selective archive one or more candidate snapshots of the set of candidate snapshots from the storage tier to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 9-29] for identifying and transmitting a subset of objects associated with snapshots being transitioned from warm snapshot into cold snapshot from the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) to the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier)).
However, Borate et al. does not explicitly teach a metric that can include/exclude (i.e., keep/remove) a latest snapshot as recited as follows:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots;
in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots”.
On the other hand, Hinman explicitly teaches a metric that can include/exclude (i.e., keep/remove) a latest snapshot as recited as follows:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a non-zero value, excluding a latest snapshot from a set of candidate snapshots” (see Hinman, [0040] and [0045] for an indication of the minimum number of snapshots to retain, even if the snapshots have expired; if the minimum number of snapshots is set to non-zero (e.g., one or more), the latest snapshot even expired but is excluded from a set of candidate snapshot for being removed from the repository);
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to a zero value, including the latest snapshot in the set of candidate snapshots” (see Hinman, [0040] for an indication of the minimum number of snapshots to retain, even if the snapshots have expired; if the minimum number of snapshots is set to zero, the latest snapshot (i.e., the most recent snapshot) if expired will be included in a set of candidate snapshot for being removed from the repository).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hinman’s teaching to Borate et al.’s system by implementing different retention parameters for managing snapshots in a data store or storage tier. Ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Borate et al. with an effective way to maintain a minimum number of most recent snapshots from being removed or archived to another storage tier. In addition, both of the references (Borate et al. and Hinman) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, a system for managing snapshots. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, these claims are rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman teaches:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to an undefined value, designating objects comprising snapshots data of snapshots within the storage tier as eligible for being archived to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 7, lines 10-28] for determining whether a certain block of data or a certain snapshot is considered as warm or cold based on a certain short period of time or other metrics; also see [column 6, line 52 to column 7, line 2] and [column 7, lines 42-63] wherein warm blocks of data and/or warm snapshots are stored in the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) and cold blocks of data and/or cold snapshots are stored in the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier)).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, these claims are rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman teaches:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to an undefined value, designating objects comprising snapshots data of snapshots within the storage tier as eligible for being archived to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 7, lines 10-28] for determining whether a certain block of data or a certain snapshot is considered as warm or cold based on a certain short period of time or other metrics; also see [column 6, line 52 to column 7, line 2] and [column 7, lines 42-63] wherein warm blocks of data and/or warm snapshots are stored in the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) and cold blocks of data and/or cold snapshots are stored in the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier)).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, these claims are rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman teaches:
“in response to the value of the restore time metric being set to the zero value, designating objects comprising snapshots data of snapshots within the storage tier as eligible for being archived to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 7, lines 10-28] for determining whether a certain block of data or a certain snapshot is considered as warm or cold based on a certain short period of time or other metrics; also see [column 6, line 52 to column 7, line 2] and [column 7, lines 42-63] wherein warm blocks of data and/or warm snapshots are stored in the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) and cold blocks of data and/or cold snapshots are stored in the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier); also see [0018] wherein when the warm reference count of a data block reaches zero (i.e., set to zero value), the data management system may determine that the data block is ready to be transferred (i.e., eligible for being archived)).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, these claims are rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman teaches:
“executing a scanner to identify the set of candidate snapshots, wherein the scanner includes snapshots that are older than the restore time metric as part of the set of candidate snapshots” (see Borate et al., [column 17, lines 44-67] for identifying a set of snapshots that have transitioned from warm to cold based on the time that has passed after the snapshots are captured as a set of candidate snapshots, wherein any process/module for identifying as indicated can be interpreted as equivalent to a scanner as recited; also see [column 3, lines 35-38] wherein warm snapshots have transitioned to one or more cold snapshots after the predefined amount of time (i.e., the restore time metric)).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, these claims are rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
In addition, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman teaches:
“for each candidate snapshot within the set of candidate snapshots” (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 10-24] for processing data blocks associated with one or more originally warm snapshots having transitioned to one or more cold snapshots):
“evaluating, by a scanner, metadata associated with the candidate snapshot to identity one or more objects eligible for archival from the storage tier to the archival storage tier” (see Borate et al., [column 3, lines 10-24] for processing data blocks associated with one or more originally warm snapshots having transitioned to one or more cold snapshots based on metadata associated with snapshots and data blocks (i.e., objects) (see [column 9, line 35 to column 10, line 15] and [column 13, lines 14-32])); and
“archiving the one or more objects from the storage tier to the archival storage tier” (Borate et al., [column 3, lines 14-29] for transmitting the identified some of the data blocks from the warm-tier data store (i.e., the storage tier) to the cold-tier data store (i.e., the archival storage tier)).
Claims 7 and 14 (effective filing date 07/30/2021) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borate et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,755,416, effectively filed date 01/08/2021), in view of Hinman (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0157504, Publication date 05/27/2021), and further in view of Kashi Visvanathan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0220367, Publication date 07/18/2019).
As to claims 7 and 14, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman teaches all limitations as recited in claims 6 and 13 respectively.
However, Borate et al. as modified by Hinman does not explicitly teach a feature of using a bitmap to identify data blocks/objects associated with a snapshot as equivalently recited as follows:
wherein the metadata comprises an object identifier map comprising bits set to indicate which objects within a remote object store comprise snapshot data of the candidate snapshot.
On the other hand, Kashi Visvanathan et al. explicitly teaches a feature of using a bitmap to identify data blocks associated with a data object (see Kashi Visvanathan et al., [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kashi Visvanathan et al.’s teaching to Borate et al.’s system (as modified by Hinman) by implementing a feature of using a bitmap for identifying data blocks or data objects associated with each snapshot. Ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Borate et al. with an effective way to indicate the relationship between data blocks/objects and snapshots in the data management system. In addition, both of the references (Borate et al. and Kashi Visvanathan et al.) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, a system for managing snapshots. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164