DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application 19/065,579, filed on 02/27/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings received on 02/27/2025 are accepted by the Examiner.
Priority
3. This application claims benefit of a prior-filed Applications
No. 15/848,519, which filed on 12/20/2017 (Patent No: 11,507,534), which also claims benefit of a provisional application No. 62/504,767, which filed on 05/11/2017.
No. 17/991,000, which filed on 11/21/2022 (Abandoned).
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of managing metadata associated with a file, as explained in detail below. The claim does not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements can be concepts performed in the human mind which do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising at least in part:
storing […] a placeholder for a file that comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file (e.g., observing and storing a placeholder of a file regarding on retrieval of remotely stored data of the file can be performed in the human mind);
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file (e.g., observing a request to store metadata associated with the file can be performed in the human mind);
storing the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder with a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file (e.g., storing the metadata that is associated with a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file can be performing in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment); and
retrieving data of the remotely stored data of the file (e.g., observing data of the remotely stored data of the file can be performed in the human mind);
converting the placeholder to the regular file, the converting comprising: storing, on the storage, the retrieved data in a primary data stream for the file (e.g., storing the placeholder as the regular file can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment); and;
as a result of the placeholder-only flag associated with the metadata, deleting the metadata from the secondary data stream (e.g., removing metadata from the second data stream can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment).
Claim 1, as it is recited, falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, using pen and paper. That is, other than reciting a computer storage to store metadata associated with the file, storing the metadata in a data stream or storing retrieve data in the data stream, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The storing features in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than a computer component that performs an abstract idea. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5 and 7 recite similar features as claim 1, is also falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claims 2, 5 and 7 further recite the metadata is stored as BLOB, the BLOB is opaque to a file system and the metadata is received from an application. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 2, 5 and 7 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 4 recite similar features as claim 1, is also falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claims 3 and 4 further recite the secondary data stream comprises a plurality of BLOBs. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 3 and 4 are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites similar features as claim 1, is also falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claim 6 recites receiving a request to lock the BLOB and lock the BLOB. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to lock data after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites a method comprising at least in part:
receiving a request to set a property of a file that is stored remotely from the storage, wherein a placeholder for the file is stored on the storage and the placeholder comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file (e.g., observing and storing a placeholder of a file regarding on retrieval of remotely stored data of the file can be performed in the human mind);
generate a Binary Large Object (OLBO) comprising the property of the file (e.g., observing and generating a data structure comprises file property can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper); and
sending, to a file system of the storage, a request to store the BLOB in the placeholder for the file, the BLOB having an associated placeholder-only flag indicating that the BLOB is deleted from the file when the placeholder is converted to a regular file as a result of the placeholder-only flag (e.g., storing the metadata in a data stream that is associated with a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file can be performing in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment).
Claim 8, as it is recited, falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, using pen and paper. That is, other than reciting a file system storage to store metadata and property associated with the file, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The storing features in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than a computer system that performs an abstract idea. The additional feature merely uses a computer system as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 recite similar features as claim 8, is also falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claims 9-14 further recite setting a property of the file from one of an application, storing a BLOB in a secondary data stream of a placeholder of the file and each BLOB comprising a different type of metadata. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 9-14 are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites a device comprising at least in part:
storing, on the storage, a placeholder for a file that comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file (e.g., observing and storing a placeholder of a file regarding on retrieval of remotely stored data of the file can be performed in the human mind);
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file (e.g., observing a request to store metadata associated with the file can be performed in the human mind);
storing the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder with a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file (e.g., storing the metadata in a data stream that is associated with a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file can be performing in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment); and
retrieving data of the remotely stored data of the file (e.g., observing data of the remotely stored data of the file can be performed in the human mind);
storing, on the storage, the retrieved data in a primary data stream for the file (e.g., storing the placeholder as the regular file can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment); and;
determining, based on the placeholder-only flag associated with the metadata and in response to the placeholder being converted to the regular file, to delete the metadata from the secondary data stream (e.g., removing metadata from the second data stream can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment).
Claim 15, as it is recited, falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, using pen and paper. That is, other than reciting a computer storage to store metadata associated with the file, storing the metadata in a data stream or storing retrieve data in the data stream, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The storing features in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than a computer component that performs an abstract idea. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 recite similar features as claim 15, is also falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claims 16, 19 and 20 further recite the metadata is stored as BLOB, the BLOB is opaque to a file system and the metadata is received from an application. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 16, 19 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Claims 17 and 18 recite similar features as claim 15, is also falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claims 17 and 18 further recite the secondary data stream comprises a plurality of BLOBs. The additional feature merely uses a computer/device as a tool to store data results after a series of data gathering step is insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional feature does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional feature does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 17 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s specification merely describes a flag indicates a file or directory has been deleted or renamed or a flag indicates a blob may be stored on a placeholder and never on a non-placeholder file. There are no passages in Applicant ‘s specification supports the feature “the flag indicates that metadata is TO BE Deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file”. For example, in para. [0074]” …In accordance with another aspect of the storage virtualization techniques disclosed herein, the concept of a tombstone is introduced. A tombstone is information that remains on the secondary storage of the computer device (e.g., disk 124) after a file or directory represented by a placeholder is deleted or renamed by an application. In one embodiment, a tombstone may be implemented by a new flag or attribute in the metadata of a placeholder for a file or directory that has been deleted. The flag indicates that the file or directory has been deleted or renamed, and the storage virtualization filter 204 and storage virtualization provider 202 may cooperate to ensure that the deletion or renaming represented by the tombstone is made to the full directory hierarchy on the remote storage when synchronizing the on-disk and remote storage representations” and in para. [0088] “A BLOB may be associated with a BLOB identifier so that the shell 210 may associate certain properties with the BLOB based on the BLOB identifier. In one embodiment, the BLOB identifier may be assigned to the BLOB by one of the shell 210 or the storage virtualization filter 204. The identifier may be a number, such as a 32-bit integer. In one embodiment, the identifier may be a globally unique identifier (GUID). Some of those bits may be reserved for the placement of ‘flags’ that may influence certain behaviors of the storage virtualization filter 204. For example, a given flag may indicate that the BLOB may only be stored on a placeholder and never on a non-placeholder file. Thus, if that placeholder ever gets converted to a non-placeholder file (e.g., through hydration of the file), the storage virtualization filter 204 may delete the BLOB with the placeholder only flag.” Thus, Applicant’s specification only supports a BLOB having a new flag indicating whether the BLOB is or has deleted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious double patenting over claims of Patent No.: US 11,507,534 B2. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the Patent No.: US 11,507,534 B2. For example:
Patent 11,507,534 B2
Instant Application: 19/065,579
1. A method comprising:
storing, on storage of a computing device, a placeholder for a file, wherein data of the file is stored remotely from the storage and the placeholder comprises: a sparse data stream containing none or some of the data of the file; and information that enables the remotely stored data of the file to be retrieved;
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file;
storing the metadata as a Binary Large Object (BLOB) in a secondary data stream of the placeholder, the BLOB having an associated flag;
retrieving the remotely stored data of the file;
storing the retrieved data in a primary data stream on the storage, thereby converting the placeholder to a regular file; and determining, based on the associated flag indicating whether the BLOB is deleted when the placeholder is converted to the regular file, to delete the BLOB from the secondary data stream in response to the placeholder being converted to the regular file.
7. A computing device comprising: a processor, storage, and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, implement a file system for managing the storage of files on storage of the computing device, the file system being configured to perform operations comprising: storing, on the storage, a placeholder for a file, wherein data of the file is stored remotely from the storage and the placeholder comprises: a sparse data stream containing none or some of the data of the file; and information that enables the remotely stored data of the file to be retrieved from the network;
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file; storing the metadata as a Binary Large Object (BLOB) in a secondary data stream of the placeholder, the BLOB having an associated identifier comprising a flag indicating whether the BLOB is permitted to be retained when the placeholder is converted to a regular file;
retrieving the remotely stored data of the file; storing the retrieved data in a primary data stream on the storage, thereby converting the placeholder to the regular file; and determining, based on the flag, to delete the BLOB from the secondary data stream.
16. A method for managing metadata associated with a file, the method comprising: storing, on storage of a computing device, a placeholder for a file, wherein data of the file is stored remotely from the storage and the placeholder comprises information that enables the remotely stored data of the file to be retrieved; receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file; storing the metadata as a Binary Large Object (BLOB) in a secondary data stream of the placeholder, the BLOB having an associated flag indicating whether the BLOB is deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file; retrieving remotely stored data of the file; storing the retrieved data in a primary data stream on the storage, thereby converting the placeholder to the regular file; and determining, based on the associated flag, to delete the BLOB from the secondary data stream in response to the placeholder being converted to the regular file.
1. A method for managing metadata associated with a file, the method comprising: storing, on storage of a computing device, a placeholder for a file that comprises
information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file;
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file;
storing the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder with a flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file;
retrieving the remotely stored data of the file;
converting the placeholder to the regular file by storing, on the storage, the remotely stored data in a primary data stream for the file; and deleting the metadata in response to the placeholder being converted to the regular file.
15. A computing device comprising: a processor; storage; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, implement a file system for managing storage of files on the storage,
the file system being configured to perform operations comprising: storing, on the storage, a placeholder for a file that comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file;
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file; storing the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder with a flag indicating whether the metadata is permitted to be retained when the placeholder is converted to a regular file;
retrieving the remotely stored data of the file; storing, on the storage, the remotely stored data in a primary data stream for the file, thereby converting the placeholder to the regular file; and determining, based on the flag, to delete the metadata from the secondary data stream in response to the placeholder being converted to the regular file.
8. A method, comprising:
receiving a request to set a property of a file that is stored remotely from the storage, wherein a placeholder for the file is stored on the storage and the placeholder comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file; generating a Binary Large Object (BLOB) comprising the property of the file; and sending, to a file system of the storage, a request to store the BLOB in the placeholder for the file, the BLOB having an associated flag indicating whether the BLOB is deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file.
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, 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, 7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. (US 2014/0324945 A1), hereinafter Novak and in view of Jones et al. (US 2004/0019613 A1), hereinafter Jones.
Referring to claim 1, Novak discloses a method for managing metadata associated with a file (See abstract, para. [0004], managing placeholders associated with file system objects), the method comprising:
storing, on storage of a computing device, a placeholder for a file that comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file (See para. [0035], para. [0036] and Figure 3, storing a placeholder indicates that the content is accessible in a remote file system or a cloud storage system);
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file (See para. [0110] and Figure 3, the file manager receives a request to store metadata and placeholder associated with file system objects);
storing the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder (See para. [0114] and Figure 3, the placeholder manager maintains the placeholders to ensure that a placeholder exists for each remote file system object in the namespace at least if the content of the remote file system object does not completely exist on the local store, the placeholder is maintained on the remote file system, note in para. [0114] indicated a placeholder can be maintained on the local file system when the content of the remote file system object completely exists on the local store) [with a user indicating] the placeholder is to be deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file (See para. [0075], para. [0078], para [0081]-para. [0083], the placeholder is purged from the local file system, and the file is accessed through regular file system [e.g., convert or replace the placeholder for the file to regular file system metadata]);
retrieving data of the remotely stored data of the file (See para. [0132] and para. [0133] retrieving the content of the file stored in a cloud storage system);
converting the placeholder to the regular file, the converting comprising:
storing, on the storage, the retrieved data in a primary data stream for the file (See para. [0075], para. [0078] and para. [0082], in response to completely hydrated, the placeholder is purged from the local file system and replaced with regular file system metadata for the file, note hydrating means copying the contents to the local file system and updating the metadata of the file for the local file system) […]; and deleting the metadata from the secondary data stream (See para. [0075], para. [0078], para. [0133]-para. [0135], the placeholder is deleted after hydrating a file).
Novak discloses a placeholder with a flag that indicates whether the content of the file is to be made available (See para. [0051] and para. [0081]) but does not explicitly disclose a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file.
Jones disclose a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted (See para. [0107] and para. [0115], the scan-placeholder includes a flag indicates whether the object should be deleted) when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file and as a result of the placeholder-only flag associated with the metadata, deleting the metadata (See para. [0107] and para. [0115] and para. [0124] and Figure 13, deleting the metadata object when the file is converted to a paper document as a result of the delete flag).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the flag of Novak to indicate that the metadata is to be deleted when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a normal file, taught by Jones. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to reduce the volume of information displayed to the user including folder names, file object names and placeholder object names and automate the deletion process to reduce the amount of manual processing at the user’s terminal (See Jones, para. [0105] and para. [0117]). In addition, both references (Jones and Novak) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling file metadata using file placeholders. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 7 and 20, Novak discloses the request to store metadata is received from one of an application or a storage virtualization provider that manages the data of the file that is stored remotely on the network (See para. [0036], para. [0053], and para. [0090], when an application receives a request to store a modified content of a file, the file system displays a file represented by the placeholder).
Referring to claim 15, Novak discloses a computing device comprising: a processor; storage (See para. [0021] and Figures 1 and 3, a computer 110, local store 320, cloud storage system 316); and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (See para. [0021] and Figure 1, a computer 110, local store 320, cloud storage system 316), implement a file system for managing storage of files on the storage, the file system being configured to perform operations (See para. [0071], para. [0072], the file system namespace using a navigation application that presents a user interface to store objects in local system and the remote file system) comprising:
storing, on the storage, a placeholder for a file that comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file (See para. [0035], para. [0036] and Figure 3, storing a placeholder indicates that the content is accessible in a remote file system or a cloud storage system);
receiving a request to store metadata associated with the file (See para. [0110] and Figure 3, the file manager receives a request to store metadata and placeholder associated with file system objects) storing the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder (See para. [0114] and Figure 3, the placeholder manager maintains the placeholders to ensure that a placeholder exists for each remote file system object in the namespace at least if the content of the remote file system object does not completely exist on the local store, the placeholder is maintained on the remote file system, note in para. [0114] indicated a placeholder can be maintained on the local file system when the content of the remote file system object completely exists on the local store) [with a user indicating] whether the metadata is permitted to be retained when the placeholder is converted to a regular file (See para. [0051], para. [0082]-para. [0084], the user indicates the metadata associated with the placeholder file to be remained and accesses the file through regular file system);
retrieving the remotely stored data of the file (See para. [0132] and para. [0133] retrieving the content of the file stored in a cloud storage system); storing, on the storage, the remotely stored data in a primary data stream for the file, thereby converting the placeholder to the regular file (See para. [0075], para. [0078] and para. [0082], in response to completely hydrated, the placeholder is purged from the local file system and replaced with regular file system metadata for the file, note hydrating means copying the contents to the local file system and updating the metadata of the file for the local file system); and determining based on metadata, to delete the metadata from the secondary data stream in response to the placeholder being converted to the regular file (See para. [0075], para. [0078], para. [0133]-para. [0135], the placeholder is deleted after hydrating a file).
Novak discloses a placeholder with a flag that indicates whether the content of the file is to be made available (See para. [0051] and para. [0081]) but does not explicitly disclose a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file.
Jones disclose a placeholder-only flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted (See para. [0107] and para. [0115], the scan-placeholder includes a flag indicates whether the object should be deleted) when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file and as a result of the placeholder-only flag associated with the metadata, deleting the metadata (See para. [0107] and para. [0115] and para. [0124] and Figure 13, deleting the metadata object when the file is converted to a paper document as a result of the delete flag).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the flag of Novak to indicate that the metadata is to be deleted when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a normal file, taught by Jones. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to reduce the volume of information displayed to the user including folder names, file object names and placeholder object names and automate the deletion process to reduce the amount of manual processing at the user’s terminal (See Jones, para. [0105] and para. [0117]). In addition, both references (Jones and Novak) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling file metadata using file placeholders. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Claims 2-4, 8-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak (US 2014/0324945 A1) and in view of Jones (US 2004/0019613 A1) and further in view of Kaplan (US 2006/0248038 A1).
As to claims 2 and 16, Novak discloses the metadata is stored in the secondary data stream (See para. [0114] and Figure 3, the placeholder manager maintains the placeholders to ensure that a placeholder exists for each remote file system object in the namespace at least if the content of the remote file system object does not completely exist on the local store, the placeholder is maintained on the remote file system, note in para. [0114] indicated a placeholder can be maintained on the local file system when the content of the remote file system object completely exists on the local store).
Novak in view of Jones does not explicitly the metadata is stored as Binary Large Object (BLOB).
Kaplan discloses storing the metadata as a Binary Large Object (BLOB) (See para. [0031], the metadata blob is a binary large object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to store the metadata in the Novak/Jones system as a Binary Large object (BLOB) as taught by Kaplan in order to have sufficient data fields to store some or all of the metadata used by different file systems (See Kaplan, para. [0031]). In addition, all of the references (Jones, Novak and Kaplan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling file between data systems/stores. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 3, 11 and 17, Kaplan also discloses a plurality of BLOBs, each BLOB comprising a different type of metadata associated with the file (See para. [0039]-para. [0042] and Figures 3 and 4), a metadata handler may have additional type of metadata fields/versions based on file systems or file variants).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a plurality of BLOBs taught by Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system in order to have sufficient data fields to store some or all of the metadata used by different file systems (See Kaplan, para. [0031]). In addition, all of the references (Kaplan, Novak, Jones) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling file between data systems/stores. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 4, 12 and 18, Kaplan also discloses a header for storing information about the plurality of BLOBs (See para. [0039] and Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a header for storing information about the plurality of BLOBs taught by Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system in order to perform storage, retrieval operations on files and metadata without even knowing the file system of each file (See Kaplan, para. [0056]). In addition, all of the references (Kaplan, Novak and Jones) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling file metadata. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Referring to claim 8, Novak discloses a method, comprising: receiving a request to set a property of a file that is stored remotely from the storage (See para. [0110], [0112] and Figure 3, the file manager receives a request to make changes [e.g., content changes, metadata changes, namespace changes or other changes] to file system objects of a file that is stored in a cloud storage system), wherein a placeholder for the file is stored on the storage and the placeholder comprises information that enables retrieval of remotely stored data of the file (See para. [0035], para. [0036] and Figure 3, storing a placeholder indicates that the content is accessible in a remote file system or a cloud storage system);
generating a metadata comprising the property of the file (See para. [0110], para. [0112] and Figure 3, the file manager receives creates metadata and placeholder associated with file system objects); and sending, to a file system of the storage, a request to store the metadata in the placeholder for the file (See para. [0114] and Figure 3, the placeholder manager maintains the placeholders to ensure that a placeholder exists for each remote file system object in the namespace at least if the content of the remote file system object does not completely exist on the local store, the placeholder is maintained on the remote file system, note in para. [0114] indicated a placeholder can be maintained on the local file system when the content of the remote file system object completely exists on the local store) [a user] indicating whether the placeholder is deleted when the placeholder is converted to a regular file (See para. [0075], para. [0078], para. [0081]- [0083], the placeholder is purged from the local file system, and the file is accessed through regular file system [e.g., convert or replace the placeholder for the file to regular file system metadata]).
Novak discloses a placeholder with a flag that indicates whether the content of the file is to be made available (See para. [0051] and para. [0081]) but does not explicitly disclose the flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file
Jones discloses flag indicating that the metadata is to be deleted (See para. [0063], the flag indicates “DELETE”) when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file (See para. [0067], when the temporary file is renamed as a name of the original file)
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the flag of Novak to indicate that the metadata is to be deleted when the temporary file or placeholder is converted to a regular file, taught by Jones. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to synchronize data between a local storage system and a remote storage system safely and effectively (See Jones, para. [0005] and para. [0007]). In addition, both references (Jones and Novak) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as synchronizing data between data stores/systems. This close relation between both references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Novak in view of Jones does not explicitly the metadata is stored as Binary Large Object (BLOB).
Kaplan discloses storing the metadata as a Binary Large Object (BLOB) (See para. [0031], the metadata blob is a binary large object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to store the metadata in the Novak/Jones system as a Binary Large object (BLOB) as taught by Kaplan in order to have sufficient data fields to store some or all of the metadata used by different file systems (See Kaplan, para. [0031]). In addition, all of the references (Jones, Novak and Kaplan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as handling file between data systems/stores. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Novak discloses the request to set the property of the file is received from one of an application or a storage virtualization provider (See para. [0036], para. [0053], and para. [0090], when an application modifies or set contents of a file, the file system displays a file represented by the placeholder).
As to claim 10, Novak discloses store the metadata in a secondary data stream of the placeholder for the file See para. [0114] and Figure 3, the placeholder manager maintains the placeholders to ensure that a placeholder exists for each remote file system object in the namespace at least if the content of the remote file system object does not completely exist on the local store, the placeholder is maintained on the remote file system, note in para. [0114] indicated a placeholder can be maintained on the local file system when the content of the remote file system object completely exists on the local store
Novak in view of Jones does not explicitly the metadata is stored as Binary Large Object (BLOB).
Kaplan discloses storing the metadata as a Binary Large Object (BLOB) (See para. [0031], the metadata blob is a binary large object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaplan in the Novak/Jones system. Skilled artisan would have bee