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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 8, 2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1-5, 7, 15-17 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Amendment made to the instant specification has been received and acknowledged.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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, 14, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEDADALA et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0034571) in view of Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487).
Referring to claim 1, BEDADALA et al. taches a method comprising:
receiving, by a target data repository, data replicated 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 by which clients 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).
However, BEDADALA et al. does not explicitly teach
providing, by the target data repository at a first time to a client, the target repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository;
accessing, by the target data repository, the source repository identifier information by which clients access the data on the source data repository; and
providing, by the target data repository at a second time to the client, the source repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository.
Ghodake et al. teaches
providing, by the target data repository at a first time to a client, the target repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository (returning a list of all matched file paths to the user for selection of desired files from the path list, see Ghodake et al., Para. 26, locating desired files of folders of files in backup cloud storage snapshots for FLR/restore, see Ghodake et al., Para. 27. FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a volume files index, 28. As shown, the volume files index is simply a list of records identifying the paths of files and their directories that are present in the associated volume, see Ghodake et al., Para. 18);
accessing, by the target data repository, the source repository identifier information by which clients to access the data on the source data repository (the snapshot ID may be added to a list of relevant snapshots. At 82, the snapshot list may be returned to the CSM, and at 84 files may be selected from the snapshot list for FLR/restore, see Ghodake et al., Para. 25); and
providing, by the target data repository at a second time to the client, the source repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository (To recover one or more desired files, various snapshots can be searched to locate those snapshots containing the desired files and to generate a list of relevant snapshots. The user may then search the list to select the snapshots containing the files of interest, and perform a FLR/restore to recover the desired files, see Ghodake et al., Para. 12).
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 providing, by the target data repository at a first time to a client, the target repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository; accessing, by the target data repository, the source repository identifier information by which clients to access the data on the source data repository; and providing, by the target data repository at a second time to the client, the source repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository, as taught by Ghodake et al., to have enabling fast and efficient location of desired files in snapshots without (Ghodake et al., Para. 4).
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 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 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, when executed by a computer, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claims 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 and Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487) as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, 15 and 18-19 above, and in further view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591).
As to claim 6, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach receiving, by the target data repository at the second time, storage operations utilizing the source repository identifier information.
However, Ouyang et al. 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).
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 receiving, by the target data repository at the second time, storage operations utilizing the source repository identifier information, as taught by Ouyang et al., to have reducing system overheads and improving backup efficiency (Ouyang et al., Para. 75).
As to claim 7, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the providing the source repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository is in response to a promotion event of the target data repository.
However, Ouyang et al. teaches the providing the source repository identifier information to access 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).
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 the providing the source repository identifier information to access the data on the target data repository is in response to a promotion event of the target data repository, as taught by Ouyang et al., to have reducing system overheads and improving backup efficiency (Ouyang et al., Para. 75).
As to claim 8, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach receiving an input from a user to either the source data repository or the target data repository initiating the promotion event.
However, Ouyang et al. 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).
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 receiving an input from a user to either the source data repository or the target data repository initiating the promotion event, as taught by Ghodake et al., to have enabling fast and efficient location of desired files in snapshots without (Ghodake et al., Para. 4).
As to claim 11, BEDADALA et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the accessing the source repository identifier information is in response to the promotion event.
However, Ouyang et al. 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).
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 the accessing the source repository identifier information is in response to the promotion event, as taught by Ouyang et al., to have reducing system overheads and improving backup efficiency (Ouyang et al., Para. 75).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection.
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 Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487) as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, 15 and 18-19 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 the 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 the 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 replicated 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 Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487) as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, 15 and 18-19 above, and in further view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0163591).
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 Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487) as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, 15 and 18-19 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 Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487) as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, 15 and 18-19 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 Ghodake et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0401487) as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, 15 and 18-19 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).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/8/2026 with respect to claims 1, 15 and 19 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights