Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Line 1 recites “An example method” is a phrase that can be implied and not clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 19-20 are computer program product claims. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. However, claims 19-20 fail to transform underlying subject matter to a different state or thing. Furthermore, the claims are not tied to another statutory class and can be performed without the use of a particular apparatus. For example, claim 19 recites “receiving, by a target data repository, data for replication from a source data repository; generating, by the target data repository and based on the receiving the data, target repository identifier information for the data … and providing, by the target data repository at a second time, the source repository identifier information for accessing the data on the target data repository”, but in no way is it clear as to how this is accomplished (i.e., accomplished by a particular machine). In order to make the method claim a statutory subject matter, a hardware component (i.e. a processor) must be explicitly provided in the body of the claim to execute the steps in the method claim. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2, 10 and 12, recites “receiving, by a target data repository, data for” performing functionality. It is intended use but not actually performing the functionality. The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, see MPEP 2106 II C.
Similar problem exists in claims 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20.
Claim 1, lines 5 and 8, “enabling” is indirect, suggest optionally, and passive which renders any recitation claimed after not be given patentable weight. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure, see MPEP 2111.04.
Similar problem exists in claims 15 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591).
Referring to claim 1, BEDADALA et al. taches a method comprising:
receiving, by a target data repository, data for replication from a source data repository (The client may then communicate data for backup to a media agent along with metadata to facilitate indexing the data at a backup location, such as a network storage site or a secondary storage disk, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 005);
generating, by the target data repository and based on the receiving the data, target repository identifier information for the data (may generate a backup index at the media agent index 153 that includes information about the data stored at the network storage system 302, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 0297), the target repository identifier information enabling clients to access the data on the target data repository (The backup index may be used to facilitate accessing the data stored at the network storage, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 0008) and different from source repository identifier information (At block 2006, the core media agent 510 stores file identifiers associated with the files identified at the block 2004 at a collect file table 1902. The collect file table 1902 may be a table that stores the identifier of files to be backed up, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 0461);
providing, by the target data repository at a first time, the target repository identifier information for accessing the data on the target data repository (accessing the backup index, providing access to the backup index to the client computing device 102, accessing the secondary storage device 526 based at least in part on the backup index, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 0441).
However, BEDADALA et al. does not explicitly teach
accessing, by the target data repository, the source repository identifier information that enables clients to access the data on the source data repository; and
providing, by the target data repository at a second time, the source repository identifier information for accessing the data on the target data repository.
Ouyang et al. teaches
accessing, by the target data repository, the source repository identifier information that enables clients to access the data on the source data repository (Each object has a unique identifier (also referred to as ID) in the file system, see Ouyang et al., Para. 28, data replication request to a disaster recovery array 30. The data replication request includes an ID of an object and a data block corresponding to the object, see Ouyang et al., Para. 47); and
providing, by the target data repository at a second time, the source repository identifier information for accessing the data on the target data repository (the disaster recovery array 30 may directly search for the target object based on the ID of the source object. In addition, in another implementation, the ID of the target object may be different from the ID of the source object. Therefore, the disaster recovery array 30 needs to search for the target object based on the ID of the source object and a correspondence between an ID of a locally stored target object and the ID of the source object, see Ouyang et al., Para. 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BEDADALA et al., to have accessing, by the target data repository, the source repository identifier information that enables clients to access the data on the source data repository; and providing, by the target data repository at a second time, the source repository identifier information for accessing the data on the target data repository, as taught by Ouyang et al., to reduce bandwidth load between the production array and the disaster recovery array (Ouyang et al., Abstract).
As to claim 2, BEDADALA et al. taches receiving, by the target data repository at the first time, storage operations utilizing the target repository identifier information (accessing the backup index, providing access to the backup index to the client computing device 102, accessing the secondary storage device 526 based at least in part on the backup index, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 0441).
As to claim 6, BEDADALA et al. as modified teaches receiving, by the target data repository at the second time, storage operations utilizing the source repository identifier information (the disaster recovery array 30 may directly search for the target object based on the ID of the source object. In addition, in another implementation, the ID of the target object may be different from the ID of the source object. Therefore, the disaster recovery array 30 needs to search for the target object based on the ID of the source object and a correspondence between an ID of a locally stored target object and the ID of the source object, see Ouyang et al., Para. 64).
As to claim 7, BEDADALA et al. as modified teaches the providing the source repository identifier information for accessing the data on the target data repository is in response to a promotion event of the target data repository (after receiving the incremental data replication request, the disaster recovery array 30 searches for a to-be-updated target object based on an ID of a source object, see Ouyang et al., Para. 64).
As to claim 8, BEDADALA et al. as modified teaches receiving an input from a user to either the source data repository or the target data repository initiating the promotion event (after receiving the incremental data replication request, the disaster recovery array 30 searches for a to-be-updated target object based on an ID of a source object, see Ouyang et al., Para. 64).
As to claim 11, BEDADALA et al. as modified teaches the accessing the source repository identifier information is in response to the promotion event (after receiving the incremental data replication request, the disaster recovery array 30 searches for a to-be-updated target object based on an ID of a source object, see Ouyang et al., Para. 64).
As to claim 14, BEDADALA et al. taches the data comprises data stored in a file (a subset of such a file (e.g., a data block, an extent, etc.), see BEDADALA et al., Para. 084); and the source repository identifier information comprises network configuration information associated with the file and the source data repository (Metadata can include, …, location/network ( e.g., a current, past or future location of the data object and network pathways to/from the data object), see BEDADALA et al., Para. 085).
Referring to claim 15, BEDADALA et al. taches a system comprising: a memory (memory, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 74) storing instructions; and one or more processors (one or more processors, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 74) communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform a process , which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 14 rejection.
Referring to claim 19, BEDADALA et al. taches a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (non-transitory computer memory, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 74) and comprising computer instructions , which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 above, and in further view of KANG (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0169235).
As to claim 3, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach a test write request of test data from a client; and the method further comprises temporarily storing, based on receiving the test write request, the test data.
However, KANG teaches a test write request of test data from a client; and the method further comprises temporarily storing, based on receiving the test write request, the test data
(a matching test write command for storing the matching test data in the memory device 140. The matching test write command may control the matching test data to be temporarily stored in the data read/write block 143 of the memory device 140, see KANG, Para. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BEDADALA et al. as modified, to have a test write request of test data from a client; and the method further comprises temporarily storing, based on receiving the test write request, the test data, as taught by KANG, to have reliability of a data storage device may be improved (KANG, Para. 10).
As to claim 4, BEDADALA et al. taches receiving, by the target data repository at the first time, additional data for replication from the source data repository; and storing the additional data in the target data repository (A differential backup operation (or cumulative
incremental backup operation) tracks and stores changes that occurred since the last full backup, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 160. The synchronization can be achieved by generally
applying an ongoing stream of incremental backups from the source subsystem 201 to the destination subsystem 203, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 271).
Claims 5, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 above, and in further view of Fischer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,114,843).
As to claim 5, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach reassigning identifier information associated with the data on the target data repository from the target repository identifier information to the source repository identifier information.
However, Fischer et al. teaches reassigning identifier information associated with the data on the target data repository from the target repository identifier information to the source repository identifier information (that any matched content with a particular source repository identifier is to be modified to reflect a particular target repository identifier, see Fischer et al., Col. 14 lines 62-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BEDADALA et al. as modified, to have reassigning identifier information associated with the data on the target data repository from the target repository identifier information to the source repository identifier information, as taught by Fischer et al., to ensures efficient and cost-effective implementation
of a change (Fischer et al., Col. 2, lines 18-19).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 above, and in further view of Compton et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,613,946).
As to claim 9, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach assigning, based on the receiving the input, the target data repository as a new source data repository.
However, Compton et al. teaches assigning, based on the receiving the input, the target data repository as a new source data repository (role of the primary data storage device may be swapped (block 438) to that secondary device so that the secondary device assumes the role of the disabled primary device, see Compton et al., Col. 20, lines 30-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BEDADALA et al. as modified, to have assigning, based on the receiving the input, the target data repository as a new source data repository, as taught by Compton et al., to have improving system performance and reliability (Compton et al., Col. 17, line 38).
As to claim 10, BEDADALA et al. as modified assigning, based on the receiving the input, the source data repository as a new target data repository (role of the primary data storage device may be swapped (block 438) to that secondary device so that the secondary device assumes the role of the disabled primary device, see Compton et al., Col. 20, lines 30-32).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 above, and in further view of CASWELL et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0004442).
As to claim 12, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach receiving, by the target data repository from a mediator, a verification of the promotion event.
However, CASWELL et al. teaches receiving, by the target data repository from a mediator, a verification of the promotion event (if the access control verification process determines that the user of the user account ( and/or user role) associated with the user request is allowed to access the certain secondary data structure, see CASWELL et al., Para. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BEDADALA et al. as modified, to have receiving, by the target data repository from a mediator, a verification of the promotion event, as taught by CASWELL et al., to allow highly flexible and efficient in configuring user access of different allowance levels (CASWELL et al., Para. 15).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 above, and in further view of Dave et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0174692).
As to claim 13, BEDADALA et al. taches the accessing the source repository identifier information is based on the receiving the data (At block 2006, the core media agent 510 stores file identifiers associated with the files identified at the block 2004 at a collect file table 1902. The collect file table 1902 may be a table that stores the identifier of files to be backed up, see BEDADALA et al., Para. 0461).
However, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach maintaining, by the target data repository, a replica of the source repository identifier information.
Dave et al. teaches maintaining, by the target data repository (the caching queue is accessible by the secondary storage cluster for maintaining an updated copy of the files, see Dave et al., Para. 75), a replica of the source repository identifier information (file user data, metadata, hard links, renames, clones, etc. at the primary site are replicated to the secondary site, see Dave et al., Para. 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BEDADALA et al. as modified, to have maintaining, by the target data repository, a replica of the source repository identifier information, as taught by Dave et al., to significantly improve the efficiency and consistency at which storage environments (Dave et al., Para. 19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168