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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119€ or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 18/491,972 (filed 10/23/2023); 17/067,481 (filed 10/9/2020); 14/546,747 (filed 11/18/2014); 62/063,162 (filed 12/5/2013); and 61/905,346, 61/905,342, and 61/905,360 (each filed 11/18/2013), fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
More specifically, independent Claims 1 and 11 recite “obtaining a first snapshot of a data file, the first snapshot representing an initial backup of the data file; identifying blocks of data of the data file that have changed since a first incremental backup of the data file; transmitting the blocks of data to a backup device; generating a second snapshot of the data file based on the blocks of data at the backup device, the second snapshot representing a second incremental backup of the data file…”. As seen, the first snapshot corresponds to the first initial backup of the data file. Applicant’s use of the language “snapshot” appears to refer to both full backups and incremental backups; thus, Applicant’s claim indicates that a first incremental backup is taken sometime between the first and second steps (i.e., an additional snapshot after the first snapshot), which results in blocks of data that have changed since the first incremental backup was taken to be transmitted to the backup device (thus being another snapshot of a sort), and then having a second snapshot representing a “second incremental backup” of the data file being taken. Thus, the second snapshot actually appears to be a third incremental backup, not a “second” incremental backup. This lacks support in the Specification and raises 112(b) indefiniteness issues. Furthermore, there is a lack of written description with respect to transmitting blocks of changed data from between the first incremental backup and second incremental backup, but rather that the changed data is represented within the second incremental backup. Therefore, the disclosure o the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for these limitations.
Applicant must delete this claim or change the application to a continuation-in-part. However, in the interest in compact prosecution, the earliest priority date of 11/18/2013 has been taken, and the claims have been treated on the merits (with respect to the prior art) in the event that Applicant chooses to change the application to a continuation-in-part. However, a 112(a), lack of written description has still been issued with respect to the present application’s status as a continuation of the earlier-filed applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
independent Claims 1 and 11 recite “obtaining a first snapshot of a data file, the first snapshot representing an initial backup of the data file; identifying blocks of data of the data file that have changed since a first incremental backup of the data file; transmitting the blocks of data to a backup device; generating a second snapshot of the data file based on the blocks of data at the backup device, the second snapshot representing a second incremental backup of the data file…”. As seen, the first snapshot corresponds to the first initial backup of the data file. Applicant’s use of the language “snapshot” appears to refer to both full backups and incremental backups; thus, Applicant’s claim indicates that a first incremental backup is taken sometime between the first and second steps (i.e., an additional snapshot after the first snapshot), which results in blocks of data that have changed since the first incremental backup was taken to be transmitted to the backup device (thus being another snapshot of a sort), and then having a second snapshot representing a “second incremental backup” of the data file being taken. Thus, the second snapshot actually appears to be a third incremental backup, not a “second” incremental backup. This lacks support in the Specification.
Furthermore, there is a lack of written description with respect to transmitting blocks of changed data from between the first incremental backup and second incremental backup, but rather that the changed data is represented within the second incremental backup.
The dependent claims are rejected for at least by virtue of their dependency on their respective independent claims.
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.
Independent Claims 1 and 11 recite “obtaining a first snapshot of a data file, the first snapshot representing an initial backup of the data file; identifying blocks of data of the data file that have changed since a first incremental backup of the data file; transmitting the blocks of data to a backup device; generating a second snapshot of the data file based on the blocks of data at the backup device, the second snapshot representing a second incremental backup of the data file…”. As seen, the first snapshot corresponds to the first initial backup of the data file. Applicant’s use of the language “snapshot” appears to refer to both full backups and incremental backups; thus, Applicant’s claim indicates that a first incremental backup is taken sometime between the first and second steps (i.e., an additional snapshot after the first snapshot), which results in blocks of data that have changed since the first incremental backup was taken to be transmitted to the backup device (thus being another snapshot of a sort), and then having a second snapshot representing a “second incremental backup” of the data file being taken. Thus, the second snapshot actually appears to be a third incremental backup, not a “second” incremental backup. Therefore, it is unclear how the second snapshot could be a “second” incremental backup; thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be established.
The dependent claims are rejected for at least by virtue of their dependency on their respective independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mam (“Mam”) (US 9,558,072 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Mam teaches A computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Mam, [3:22-67] and [Claim 6], where the disclosed system may be implemented as a server 21 that includes a hardware data processor 31, which includes one or more CPUs for executing computer program instructions stored in the program memory 34 for implementing the disclosed steps) comprising:
obtaining a first snapshot of a data file, the first snapshot representing an initial backup of the data file (Mam, [FIG. 2, items 52-53] and [4:7-15], where full backup T0 is taken at time T0);
identifying blocks of data of the data file that have changed since a first incremental backup of the data file (Mam, [4:16-31], where a changed block tracking driver 67 accesses a block allocation map 65 in the snapshot volume 64 to determine whether or not the specified block has been changed since the time that the snapshot process began upon the snapshot volume 64, e.g., the block allocation map 65 includes a modified block bitmap 68 in which a respective bit for each block is either a logical zero indicating that the block has not been changed since the time of the snapshot, or else is a logical 1 indicating that the block has been changed since the time of the snapshot);
transmitting the blocks of data to a backup device (Mam, [FIG. 2] and [4:32-45], where if the block allocation map 65 indicates that the block has been changed since the time of the snapshot, then the write request is passed to the block access routine 61 of the logical volumes facility 43, and new data is written to the specified data block (of the source volume). See Mam, [FIG. 5] and [7:26-51], where this is done such that the data resulting on the source volume will be consistent with the final state of the snapshot change block tracking data. The snapshot copy facility is then invoked to take the volume offline to enable the snapshot to be taken. See Mam, [3:22-52] and [4:7-15], where a backup volume is made on the backup data storage);
generating a second snapshot of the data file based on the blocks of data at the backup device, the second snapshot representing a second incremental backup of the data file (Mam, [FIG. 2, items 52-53] and [4:7-15], where full backup T0 is taken at time T0 (i.e., “wherein the first snapshot corresponds to a first point in time”), followed by incremental backup T1 at time T1 , and incremental backup T2 at time T2 (i.e., “the second snapshot representing a second incremental backup of the data file”)); and
restoring the data file using the first snapshot of the data file and the second snapshot of the data file (Mam, [FIG. 7], [FIG. 9], and [4:1-6], where the system restores a source volume to time TN by copying data from the full backup (T0) and the incremental backups (T1, T2, … TN)).
Regarding claim 2: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the blocks of data of the data file that have changed since the first incremental backup of the data file comprises identifying the blocks of data using a change tracking bitmap (Mam, [4:16-31], where a changed block tracking driver 67 accesses a block allocation map 65 in the snapshot volume 64 to determine whether or not the specified block has been changed since the time that the snapshot process began upon the snapshot volume 64, e.g., the block allocation map 65 includes a modified block bitmap 68 in which a respective bit for each block is either a logical zero indicating that the block has not been changed since the time of the snapshot, or else is a logical 1 indicating that the block has been changed since the time of the snapshot).
Regarding claim 6: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise generating a third snapshot of the data file, the third snapshot representing a third incremental backup of the data file (Mam, [FIG. 2, items 52-53] and [4:7-15], where incremental backup T2 (i.e., “second snapshot of the data file”) and incremental backup T3 (i.e., “the third snapshot representing a third incremental backup of the data file”) are generated).
Regarding claim 7: Mam teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise restoring the data file using the first snapshot, the second snapshot, and the third snapshot (Mam, [FIG. 7, item 83] and [7:63-67]-[8:1-8], where the system restores the source volume to the time TN by copying data from the full backup (T0) and the incremental backups (T1, T2, … TN)).
Regarding claim 9: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, wherein restoring the data file comprises restoring the data file to a point-in-time state (Mam, [FIG. 7], [FIG. 9], and [4:1-6], where the system restores a source volume to time TN (i.e., “point-in-time state”) by copying data from the full backup (T0) and the incremental backups (T1, T2, … TN)).
Regarding claim 10: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first snapshot corresponds to a first point in time and the second snapshot corresponds to a second point in time different from the first point in time (Mam, [FIG. 2, items 52-53] and [4:7-15], where full backup T0 is taken at time T0 (i.e., “wherein the first snapshot corresponds to a first point in time”), followed by incremental backup T1 at time T1 (i.e., “wherein the second snapshot corresponds to a second point in time”)).
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mam (“Mam”) (US 9,558,072 B1), in view of Kirihata (“Kirihata”) (US 2014/0006355 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise, before restoring the data file, scrubbing the data file to remove sensitive information from the data file.
Kirihata teaches wherein the operations further comprise, before restoring the data file, scrubbing the data file to remove sensitive information from the data file (Kirihata, [0040] and [0079], where if a to-be-applied policy ID matches the ID of the sensitive data management policy, the backup management service 109 deletes the sensitive data from the backup data (the group of virtual machine files 108)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Mam and Kirihata protecting personal information or confidential business information (see, e.g., Kirihata, [0008]).
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mam (“Mam”) (US 9,558,072 B1), in view of Ranade et al. (“Ranade”) (US 2011/0010515 A1).
Regarding claim 4: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise generating a live clone of the data file based on the first snapshot, the live clone executable without modification.
Ranade teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating a live clone of the data file based on the first snapshot, the live clone executable without modification (Ranade, [0061], where the system may generate a second virtual machine running on a second host computer, wherein the second virtual machine is a copy or “clone” of the first virtual machine. See Ranade, [0069], where a virtual disk was created for the second virtual machine by obtaining a copy of a virtual disk associated with the first virtual machine. Note that Ranade discloses in [0065] that because the second virtual machine is a copy of the first virtual machine, the backup of the virtual hard disk of the second virtual machine can be used as the backup of the virtual hard disk of the first virtual machine, which implies that the “live clone” was “executable without modification”, as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Mam and Ranade with the motivation of enabling a perfectly consistent backup of a virtual machine to be obtained without shutting down the virtual machine and very little degradation in performance of the virtual machine (Ranade, [0048]), as a backup of the virtual hard disk of the clone can be obtained in a manner that does not consume any resources of the first host machine (Ranade, [0011]).
Regarding claim 5: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the data file comprises a virtual hard disk file for a virtual machine.
Ranade teaches wherein the data file comprises a virtual hard disk file for a virtual machine (Ranade, [0058], where a snapshot of a virtual disk associated with the copied virtual machine is obtained (implying snapshots/backups are of a virtual (hard) disk of a virtual machine). See also, e.g., Ranade, [0065], where the system backs up a virtual hard disk of a virtual machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Mam and Ranade. Mam discloses in [4:46-64] and [5:11-25] that the snapshot volume 64 and full or incremental backup volume may conform to the Microsoft Virtual Hard Disk Image Specification, i.e., snapshots corresponding to a virtual hard disk image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been suggested by Mam’s disclosure to explicitly incorporate Ranade’s disclosure that the (backup) data file comprises a virtual hard disk file for a virtual machine with the motivation of applying the claimed steps to the technologies of virtual machines, which enables virtual machines to operate as if they have access to their own dedicated set of physical resources and supporting the execution of application programs for certain guest operating systems (see, e.g., Ranade, [0001-0002]), i.e., increasing the utilization of hardware resources without being limited to specific operating systems and thus applications.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mam (“Mam”) (US 9,558,072 B1), in view of Baron et al. (“Baron”) (US 2014/0244951 A1).
Regarding claim 8: Mam teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the backup device comprises a network-attached storage (NAS) system.
Baron teaches wherein the backup device comprises a network-attached storage (NAS) system (Baron, [0018], [0023], [0029], and [0036], where storage device 190 is a network-attached storage (NAS) stores files, virtual disks, snapshots of the virtual disks, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Mam and Baron with the motivation of utilizing a high-capacity network data storage system which appears to network nodes (network-connected client computers) as a single disk drive resource, where client computers can access and manipulate files at the NAS with local file system commands1, thereby providing a large amount of storage space as well as providing greater convenience/ease in managing data stored on such systems.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the enclosed 892 form. Fan et al. (US 7,546,354 B1) is cited to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized network attached storage systems for storing data (Fan et al., [Background]).
The prior art should be considered to define the claims over the art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, NEVEEN ABEL-JALIL can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
28 September 2025
1 Fan et al. US 7,546,354 B1 at [Background].