DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 03/09/2026. Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In the response filed 03/09/2026, claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 18 have been amended, claims 12 and 13 have been cancelled, and new claims 21 and 22 have been added.
The Applicant’s Interview Summary is acknowledged and it is OK.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
The applicant is pages 10 and 11 of the Remark argues that:
The claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in data storage utilization. Specifically, the method of claim 1 involves creating a new instance of a data chunk (i.e., not deduplicating the data for the object) based on a policy applied to "one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile"2. This may improve storage utilization by a data platform that manages a storage system by reducing the number of superfluous chunks (i.e., chunks that are not referenced by any archive but that are retained in a chunkfile) in the storage system.3 Thus, the step of "based on application of a policy to the computed one or more properties of the
plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile, cause a new instance of the data from the object of the primary file system to be stored as a second chunk in a different, second chunkfile," as recited by claim 1, is not merely "an extra post solution activity of storing data."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In claim 1 the feature of generating a new instance of data chunk in a second chunk file based on application of a policy to at least a property of the chunk file is recited at high level of generality without reciting a specific and detailed way of achieving the result and in a conclusory manner. The claim does define “policy” or the type of new generated instances. For example, the claim does not explicitly or implicitly recite any of the features of “chunks that are not referenced by any archive but that are retained in a chunkfile” and “not deduplicating the data for the object” as specified by the applicant.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)…The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
Here, the limitations of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality and in conclusory manner. Claim 1 lacks specific technical details on how to achieve the results in a specific way. Therefore, looking at the claims as a “whole”, the full scope of the claim under BRI do reflect the disclosed improvements in a computer function or technology. As such, the claim does not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, it merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the Examiner holds the claimed invention recited in claim 1 cannot improve a manner in which a computer functions or other technology because the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement for lacking specific technical details and a particular way to achieve the desired outcome.
Furthermore, the Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that the current claimed invention as recited in claim is analogous to “Subject Matter Eligibility example 40.” First, Example 40 involves with collecting network data providing specific technical details on how to achieve the results in a specific way. The claim itself reflect the disclosed improvement. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. Therefore, contrary to the current claim 1, Example 40 provide sufficient technical details to reflect the disclosed improvement. Thus, the current claim 1 is not similar to Example 40.
In conclusion, based on above reasoning and explanation, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-22 for being abstract idea is maintained.
With respect to 35 USC 102/103 rejection:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s allegation that “the identified objects with segments in Rath are already ‘deduped cloud objects’ whose segments may match data for an object that has already been deduplicated. Rath therefore does not teach the recited claim 1 language of identify a first chunkfile that includes a first chunk that matches data for an object of a primary file system being considered for deduplication.’"
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given the broadest and reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading language of the claims in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner is mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner holds that the giving the limitations of claim 1 their broadest and reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and without importing the limitation of the specification into the claim, the subject matter of “being considered for deduplication” is not recited in a positive way. The recited “object of a primary file system” is not or has not been “deduplicated” in the claim. It is merely “being considered for deduplication.” As such, the subject matter of “being considered for deduplication” could be interpreted as an intended use. No deduplication is positively performed in the claim; thus, it does not carry any patentable weight. The limitation of “an object of a primary file system” as recited in claim 1 is not required to be a deduplicated object or “considered for deduplication.” Therefore, the data object as disclosed by Rath would reads on the limitation of object of a primary file system as recited by claim 1.
Furthermore,
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly amended claim 1 that cited reference does not teach the limitation of “based on application of a policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile, cause a new instance of the data from the object of the primary file system to be stored as a second chunk in a different, second chunkfile” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over new reference, Rath et al., US 2023/0222057.
Therefore, the new combination of Rath et al., US 2022/0121529 in view of Rath et al., US 2023/00222057 discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 15, and 18.
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 1-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are directed to a method/system/medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the steps of:
identify a first chunkfile that includes a first chunk that matches data from an object of a primary file system being considered for deduplication; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind.]
compute one or more properties of a plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally determine expiration time (compute a property) of data] and
based on application of a policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile, cause a new instance of the data from the object of the primary file system [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., an administrator) can mentally applies policies to properties of chunk and identify matching chunks]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and
opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 15, and 18 recite additional limitation of “cause a new instance of the chunk…to be stored as a second chunkfile in a different chunkfile,” at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it is considered to be an extra post-solution activity of storing data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, claims 1, 15, and 18 recite additional elements of “a storage device”, "a processing circuitry" "a data platform", “file system”, and/or “a computer-readable storage medium” which are generic computer components to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 15, and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitation of “cause a new instance of the chunk…to be stored as a second chunkfile in a different chunkfile,” at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it is considered to be a well-understood and routine computer activity of storing data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the claims recite additional elements of “a storage device”, "a processing circuitry" "a data platform", “file system”, and/or “a computer-readable storage medium” which are generic computer components to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be well-understood and routine computer activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, 14, 21, and 22,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims additional steps for applying policy, computing number of chunks, determining WORM lock expiration time, initiating generation of new backup, and/or computing lock expiration time, determining additional properties which involve mathematical, evaluation, and/or judgement concepts and considered to be mental processes.
The claims might further recite the limitation of storing data, obtaining data, and/generating of backup/archive, a cloud storage provider which is considered to insignificant extra solution and well-understood and routine computer activity of retaining, storing, receiving, and/or obtaining data that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims.
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 1, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath et al., US 2022/0121529 in view of Rath et al., US 2023/0222057 (Rath’057, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1,
Rath discloses a method comprising:
identifying, by a data platform implemented by a computing system, a first chunkfile that includes a first chunk that matches data from an object of a file system being considered for deduplication (Rath: at least Fig. 1-3, para 2, 14, 19, 20, 38, 39, and 47, identifying objects/files with segments shared by one or more files of a file system. Note that subject matter of “being considered for deduplication” is interpreted as an intended use. No deduplication is performed in the claim; thus, it does not carry any patentable weight);
compute one or more properties of a plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining metadata or properties such as lock duration, expiry date, lock count for segments); and
based on application of a policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile, cause a new(Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70, creating new [defragmented] objects and storing the instances of identified segments with expired or unexpired lock/retention).
Although, Rath discloses storing creating and storing a new object based on application of a policy, Rath does not explicitly teach cause a new instance of the data from the object of the primary file system to be stored as a second chunk in a different, second chunkfile.
On the other hand, Rath’057 discloses creating a new copy of a segment of an object in a first storage class and transferring it to a new object or a second storage class based on a policy “to ensure a unique segment to be moved to the second storage class.” (See Rath’57: at least Fig. 7 and para 83-90). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Rath with Rath’057s teaching in order to cause a new instance of the data from the object of the primary file system to be stored as a second chunk in a different, second chunkfile, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve migration of deduplicated data to archival storage by writing only the unique segments to new objects in the archive tier and then eventually clean up the redundant objects.
Regarding claim 14,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the matching chunk of the first chunkfile is associated with an existing archive or backup of the primary file system, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to process the object of the primary file system to generate a new archive or a new backup of the primary file system (Rath: at least Fig. 1-2, para 2, 19, 30, and 33-35, determining the segments of objects or files having shared segments with backup files).
Regarding claims 15 and 18,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claim 1, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:cause the new instance of the data from the object of the primary file system to be stored as the second chunk in the different, second chunkfile, without deleting the first chunkfile (See Rath’57: at least Fig. 7 and para 83-90).
Regarding claim 22,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the policy is a first policy, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: based on application of the first policy and a second policy that is different from the first policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile, determine that the one or more properties do not satisfy both the first policy and the second policy; (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining metadata or properties such as lock duration (i.e., a first property) and expiry date or lock count (i.e., a second property) for segments) and based on the determination that the one or more properties do not satisfy both the first policy and the second policy, cause the new instance of the data from the object to be stored as the second chunk in the different, second chunkfile (Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70 and Rath’57: at least Fig. 7 and para 83-90).
Claims 2-4, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath et al., US 2022/0121529 in view of Rath et al., US 2023/00222057 and further in view of Narulkar et al., US 2023/0147671 (Narulkar, hereafter).
Regarding claim 2,
Although, the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses based on application of the policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile and to a lock expiration time of the first chunkfile (Rath: at least Fig. 4-5, para 3, 57, 69 and 70, applying a lock expiration time for objects and retaining the lock), it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock and retain the WORM lock expiration time of the first chunkfile.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath and Rath’057 with Narulkar’s teaching in order to based on application of the policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile and to a write-once read-many (WORM) lock expiration time of the first chunkfile, retain the WORM lock expiration time of the first chunkfile, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses to compute a data lock expiration time for the data for the object of the primary file system (See Rath: at least Fig. 4A and para 57, computing lock duration for an object of a file system); and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to apply the policy to the computed one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile based on a determination that a lock expiration time for the first chunkfile is less than the data lock expiration time for the data for the object of the primary file system (See Rath: at least Fig. 4A and para 57-58, comparing the duration of current and new locks with they are less or greater, and apply a policy based on determination). However, it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath and Rath’057 with Narulkar’s teaching in order to include a write-once read-many (WORM), with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein one or more properties of a plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile comprise an original lock expiration time for the first chunkfile (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining lock duration or expiration time for segments)); and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on application of the policy to the original lock expiration time for the first chunkfile (See Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70). However, it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like
for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath and Rath’057 with Narulkar’s teaching in order to include a write-once read-many (WORM), with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claims 19 and 20,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 2 and 3,
respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claims 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath et al., US 2022/0121529 in view of Rath et al., US 2023/0222057 further in view of Narulkar et al., US 2023/0147671 (Narulkar, hereafter) and further in view of Elango et al., US 2024/0202162 (Elango, hereafter).
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile comprise respective chunk expiration times for the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining lock duration or expiration time for segments); wherein to apply the policy the processing circuitry is configured to apply the policy to the respective chunk expiration times for the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile (See Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70). However, it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath and Rath’057 with Narulkar’s teaching in order to include a write-once read-many (WORM), with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
The combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Narulkar discloses the limitations as stated above including the data deduplication system extend the retention lock capability (See Rath: at least para 19) and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy (Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70, creating new [defragmented] objects and storing the instances of identified segments with expired [i.e., the locks were not extended]). However, it does not explicitly teach to determine whether lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy.
On the other hand, Elango discloses determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Narulkar with Elango’s teaching in order to determine whether lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to integrity and immutability of data in case if the chunkfile or object is still referenced by other files or objects.
Regarding claim 6,
the combination Rath, Rath’057, Narulkar, and Elango discloses wherein the policy specifies two or more expiration time bands each having a range of expiration times, wherein, to apply the policy, the processing circuitry is configured to: compute a number of the plurality of chunks, included in the first chunkfile, having chunk expiration times in each of the expiration time bands (Rath: at least Fig. 3 and para 47-49, determining the number of expired segments); and
determine the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy based on respective proportions of those chunks having a chunk expiration time in the expiration time bands (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68, determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended).
Regarding claim 11,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile comprise metadata of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining metadata of segments); wherein to apply the policy the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether metadata for the plurality of chunks, the metadata for the plurality of chunks generated based on the policy (See Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70). However, it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath and Rath’057 with Narulkar’s teaching in order to include a write-once read-many (WORM), with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
The combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Narulkar discloses the limitations as stated above including the data deduplication system extend the retention lock capability (See Rath: at least para 19) and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy (Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70, creating new [defragmented] objects and storing the instances of identified segments with expired [i.e., the locks were not extended]). However, it does not explicitly teach indicating whether a WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy.
On the other hand, Elango discloses determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Narulkar with Elango’s teaching in order to indicate whether a WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to integrity and immutability of data in case if the chunkfile or object is still referenced by other files or objects.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath et al., US 2022/0121529 in view of Rath et al., US 2023/0222057 further in view of Jain et al., US 2011/0231374 (Jain, hereafter) further in view of Narulkar et al., US 2023/0147671 (Narulkar, hereafter) and further in view of Elango et al., US 2024/0202162 (Elango, hereafter).
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile comprise (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining metadata for segments); wherein to apply the policy the processing circuitry is configured to apply the policy to the (See Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70). However, Rath does not explicitly teach respective number of references for the plurality of chunks.
On the other hand, Jian discloses reference counts for the blocks of data (See Jain: at least Fig. 1 and para 42-45, 56, and 112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath and Rath’057 with Jain’s teaching in order to include respective number of references for the plurality of chunks, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve deduplication and data integrity by maintaining reference counts for each chunk to keep track of the number of files that are referring to a given chunk.
The combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Jain discloses the limitations as stated above. However, it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Jain with Narulkar’s teaching in order to include a write-once read-many (WORM), with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
The combination Rath, Rath’057, and, Jain, and Narulkar discloses the limitations as stated above including the data deduplication system extend the retention lock capability (See Rath: at least para 19) and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy (Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70, creating new [defragmented] objects and storing the instances of identified segments with expired [i.e., the locks were not extended]). However, it does not explicitly teach to determine whether lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy.
On the other hand, Elango discloses determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath, Rath’057, Jain, and Narulkar with Elango’s teaching in order to determine whether a write-once read-many (WORM) lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to integrity and immutability of data in case if the chunkfile or object is still referenced by other files or objects.
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Rath, Rath’057, Jain, Narulkar, and Elango discloses wherein the policy specifies two or more number of references bands each having a range of numbers of references (Jain: at least Fig. 1 and para 42-45, 56, and 112), and
wherein to apply the policy the processing circuitry further configured to:
compute a number of the plurality of chunks, included in the first chunkfile, having respective numbers of references in each of the number of references bands (Rath: at least Fig. 3 and 47-49 and Jain: at least Fig. 1 and para 42-45, 56, and 112); and
determine the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy based on respective proportions of those chunks having a number of references in the number of references bands (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68, determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended).
Regarding claim 9,
the combination of Rath and Rath’057 discloses wherein the one or more properties of the plurality of chunks included in the first chunkfile comprise (Rath: at least Fig. 2-3, Fig. 5B, para 39, 49, 50, and 69, determining metadata for segments); wherein to apply the policy the processing circuitry is configured to apply the policy to the (See Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70). However, Rath does not explicitly teach respective last referenced times of the plurality of chunks.
On the other hand, Jian discloses last reference timestamp of blocks of data (See Jain: at least Fig. 1 and para 20-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Rath and Rath’057 with Jainr’s teaching in order to include respective number of references for the plurality of chunks, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve deduplication and data integrity by maintaining reference counts for each chunk to keep track of the last reference time for files that are referring to a given chunk.
The combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Jain discloses the limitations as stated above. However, it does not explicitly teach a write-once read-many (WORM) lock.
On the other hand, Narulkar discloses a WORM lock and retaining a WORM like for an object/file (See Narulkar: at least Fig. 3A-B and para 6, 309, and 320). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath, Rath’057, and Jain with Narulkar’s teaching in order to include a write-once read-many (WORM), with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide storage technologies that securely protect stored data in its originally written form for a specified time using WORM.
The combination of Rath, Rath’057, Jain, and Narulkar discloses the limitations as stated above including the data deduplication system extend the retention lock capability (See Rath: at least para 19) and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy (Rath: at least Fig. 3A-4C, para 15, 16, 39, 49, 54, and 70, creating new [defragmented] objects and storing the instances of identified segments with expired [i.e., the locks were not extended]). However, it does not explicitly teach to determine whether lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy.
On the other hand, Elango discloses determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Rath, Rath’057, Jain, and Narulkar with Elango’s teaching in order to determine whether a write-once read-many (WORM) lock expiration time for the first chunkfile can be extended according to the policy; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the new instance of the chunk that matches the data for the object of the primary file system to be stored in the different, second chunkfile based on a determination that the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to integrity and immutability of data in case if the chunkfile or object is still referenced by other files or objects.
Regarding claim 10,
the combination of Rath, Rath’057, Jain, Narulkar, and Elango discloses wherein the policy specifies two or more last referenced bands each having a range of last referenced times (Jain: at least Fig. 1 and para 42-45, 56, and 112), and wherein to apply the policy the processing circuitry is configured to: compute a number of chunks of the plurality of chunks, included in the first chunkfile, having respective numbers of last referenced times in each of the last referenced bands (Rath: at least Fig. 3 and 47-49 and Jain: at least Fig. 1 and para 42-45, 56, and 112); and determine the WORM lock expiration time for the first chunkfile cannot be extended according to the policy based on respective proportions of those chunks having a number of references in the number of references bands (see Elango: at least Fig. 4A-5, para 12, 14, 55-58, and 68, determining to extend a lock duration for a time less than or equal to maximum duration implying that if a lock for an object reached the maximum duration, it will not be extended).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights