Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the communication filed on March 28, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shaw, JR. et al (US 2018/0025026 A1).
As per claim 1, Shaw discloses:
- an electronic filesystem comprising (Fig. 1, Para [0021], a file system),
- a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (Para [0022], [0097], a processor and memory couple to processor which stores program instructions to execute by the processor),
- write a file into the filesystem (Para [0025], Fig. 2, writing into the file system),
- store data of the file as complete native entities in a backing store at a specific mapped location (column 25, Fig. 2, the local version of the shared versioned file system stores local user files (the data) (i.e., data of the file) in their native form in cache 208 (i.e., backing store),
- wherein when a user one of modifies the file or rewrites the file entirely, the filesystem stores new file data in new complete native entities in the backing store (Fig. 2, item 206, Para [0025], [0039], when a user computer modifies a document corresponding to a file the new version of file store locally (i.e., stores new file data in native entities in the backing store)).
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Shaw discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to stream a complete file serially from all entities storing a latest version of the file (Para [0045] – [0047], [0084] inode/10/s1/now (i.e., streaming file serially) to store latest version).
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 2-5, 7 and 10-11, 12-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Shaw Jr. et al (US 2018/0025026 A1), in view of Lin et al (US 2016/0004718 A1).
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated,
Shaw does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to read byte ranges of the file from respective entities storing a latest version of the byte ranges. However, in the same field of endeavor Lin in an analogous art disclose wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to read byte ranges of the file from respective entities storing a latest version of the byte ranges (Para [0137], line 16-19, Para [0154], shared byte-range that allow user shared read access of the file)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the read and write byte range of a file in the file system taught by Lin as the means to modify or rewrites the file in native entities in the backing store of Shaw, (Shaw, Fig. 2, Para [0025], [0039], Lin, Para [0154], [0009]). Shaw and Lin are analogous prior art since they both deal with reading and writing a file in a file system. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve an operation of write object in a file system. This is because one aspect of Shaw invention is to improve an operation of a write once object store an inode-based storage system that conventionally requires rewrite-in-place functionality, as described at least in Para [0095]. Reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem is part of this process. However, Shaw doesn’t specify any particular manner in which reading and writing are processed as byte range. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem as taught by Lin. Lin describes how their byte range locking system improve client file access performance by providing a range odd client caching option of file in the file system as described at least in Para [0087], as desired by Shaw.
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Shaw discloses:
- write and store the sequence of bytes in another entity in the backing store (Para [0090] - [0091], chunk of the file store at a cloud path (i.e., sequence of bytes) in the backing store),
Shaw does not explicitly disclose perform a first write on a byte range of the file through the filesystem, the first write changing a sequence of bytes in the file; store in metadata of the filesystem for the file byte range information recording the first write. However, in the same field of endeavor Lin in an analogous art discloses perform a first write on a byte range of the file through the filesystem, the first write changing a sequence of bytes in the file (Para [0009], [0017], [0107], byte-range locking performs write on a byte-range of the file), store in metadata of the filesystem for the file byte range information recording the first write (Para [0047], storage device store file system metadata for the file system with the byte-range information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the read and write byte range of a file in the file system taught by Lin as the means to modify or rewrites the file in native entities in the backing store of Shaw, (Shaw, Fig. 2, Para [0025], [0039], Lin, Para [0154], [0009]). Shaw and Lin are analogous prior art since they both deal with reading and writing a file in a file system. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve an operation of write object in a file system. This is because one aspect of Shaw invention is to improve an operation of a write once object store an inode-based storage system that conventionally requires rewrite-in-place functionality, as described at least in Para [0095]. Reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem is part of this process. However, Shaw doesn’t specify any particular manner in which reading and writing are processed as byte range. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem as taught by Lin. Lin describes how their byte range locking system improve client file access performance by providing a range odd client caching option of file in the file system as described at least in Para [0087], as desired by Shaw.
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- wherein the byte range information indicates which byte ranges of the file are in what byte ranges of an entity of the file as originally written to the filesystem and which byte ranges of the file are in an entity of the first write (Para [0054], [0081], indication of original block of the file modification and new or first write of the file).
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- generate new entities for each proceeding new write, write and store each corresponding new entity in the backing store (Para [0017], [0018], [0021], [0118], generating new directory for every new version (i.e., generating new entities for new write)),
- store in metadata of the filesystem for each corresponding file byte range information recording each proceeding new write, wherein each corresponding file byte range information indicates which byte ranges of the file are in what byte ranges of an entity of the file as originally written to the filesystem and which byte ranges of the file are in an entity of each proceeding new write (Para [0019], [0047], [0055], [0057], block storage to store file system metadata indicating bytes previously written and new or first time written).
As per claim 7, rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- receive a file read (Para [0045], read write request for file system block level read),
- look-up byte ranges in the metadata of the filesystem as stored in the backing store (Para [0099], perform lookup in the file system metadata),
- read entities in the backing store corresponding to corresponding byte range information of a requested file of the file read (Fig. 15, item 1510, 1520, Para [0097], [0143], file access request to read entities of a file system form a backing store),
- sending the byte ranges requested (Fig. 15, item 1530, Para [0143], seceding the requested byte range).
As per claim 10, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to collect successive writes to the file through the file system in a buffer to optimize creation of new entities to store the successive writes (Para [0091], [0097], [0089], [0124], [0144] – [0145], writing file to the buffer cache for most up-to-date file data and optimization).
As per claim 11, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to write a log in a secondary storage collected writes to the file in the filesystem (Para [0146], [0147], Fig. 13, item 1320, writing a log in the storage system).
As per claim 12, Shaw discloses:
- an electronic filesystem comprising (Fig. 1, Para [0021], a file system),
- a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (Para [0022], [0097], a processor and memory couple to processor which stores program instructions to execute by the processor),
- write a file into the filesystem (Para [0025], Fig. 2, writing into the file system),
- store data of the file as complete native entities in a backing store at a specific mapped location (column 25, Fig. 2, the local version of the shared versioned file system stores local user files (the data) (i.e., data of the file) in their native form in cache 208 (i.e., backing store),
- wherein when a user one of modifies the file or rewrites the file entirely, the filesystem stores new file data in new complete native entities in the backing store (Fig. 2, item 206, Para [0025], [0039], when a user computer modifies a document corresponding to a file the new version of file store locally (i.e., stores new file data in native entities in the backing store)).
Shaw does not explicitly disclose read byte ranges of the file from respective entities storing a latest version of the byte ranges, wherein the byte range information indicates which byte ranges of the file are in what byte ranges of an entity of the file as originally written to the filesystem and which byte ranges of the file are in an entity of a successive write. However, in the same field of endeavor Lin in an analogous art disclose read byte ranges of the file from respective entities storing a latest version of the byte ranges (Para [0137], line 16-19, Para [0154], shared byte-range that allow user shared read access of the file), wherein the byte range information indicates which byte ranges of the file are in what byte ranges of an entity of the file as originally written to the filesystem and which byte ranges of the file are in an entity of a successive write (Para [0054], [0081], indication of original block of the file modification and new or first write of the file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the read and write byte range of a file in the file system taught by Lin as the means to modify or rewrites the file in native entities in the backing store of Shaw, (Shaw, Fig. 2, Para [0025], [0039], Lin, Para [0154], [0009]). Shaw and Lin are analogous prior art since they both deal with reading and writing a file in a file system. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve an operation of write object in a file system. This is because one aspect of Shaw invention is to improve an operation of a write once object store an inode-based storage system that conventionally requires rewrite-in-place functionality, as described at least in Para [0095]. Reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem is part of this process. However, Shaw doesn’t specify any particular manner in which reading and writing are processed as byte range. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem as taught by Lin. Lin describes how their byte range locking system improve client file access performance by providing a range odd client caching option of file in the file system as described at least in Para [0087], as desired by Shaw.
As per claim 13, rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and further Shaw discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to stream a complete file serially from all entities storing a latest version of the file (Para [0045] – [0047], [0084] inode/10/s1/now (i.e., streaming file serially) to store latest version).
As per claim 14, rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- receive a file read (Para [0045], read write request for file system block level read),
- look-up byte ranges in the metadata of the filesystem as stored in the backing store (Para [0099], perform lookup in the file system metadata),
- read entities in the backing store corresponding to corresponding byte range information of a requested file of the file read (Fig. 15, item 1510, 1520, Para [0097], [0143], file access request to read entities of a file system form a backing store),
- sending the byte ranges requested (Fig. 15, item 1530, Para [0143], seceding the requested byte range).
As per claim 17, rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to collect successive writes to the file through the file system in a buffer to optimize creation of new entities to store the successive writes (Para [0091], [0097], [0089], [0124], [0144] – [0145], writing file to the buffer cache for most up-to-date file data and optimization).
As per claim 18, rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to write a log in a secondary storage collected writes to the file in the filesystem (Para [0146], [0147], Fig. 13, item 1320, writing a log in the storage system).
Claims 8-9 and 15-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Shaw Jr. et al (US 2018/0025026 A1), in view of Lin et al (US 2016/0004718 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lacapa et al (US 2009/0077097 A1).
As per claim 8, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated,
Combined method of Shaw and Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to coalesce the file from a plurality of entities to a new single entity. However, in the same field of endeavor Lacapra in an analogous art disclose wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to coalesce the file from a plurality of entities to a new single entity (Fig. 3-5, Para [0061], [0063], [0100], joining (i.e., coalesce the file) files from different entities to a single entity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Shaw, as previously modified with Lin, with the teaching of Lacapra by modifying Shaw such that coalesce or joining the file entities to single entity for easy management of network file in a network storage. The motivation for doing so would be managing file in easier and cost-effective way in a file directory, (Lacapra, Para [0135]).
As per claim 9, rejection of claim 8 is incorporated,
Combined method of Shaw and Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein the new single entity is stored in an original location on the backing store so it can be read as an up-to-date native copy of the file originally in the filesystem on the backing store. However, in the same field of endeavor Lacapra in an analogous art disclose wherein the new single entity is stored in an original location on the backing store so it can be read as an up-to-date native copy of the file originally in the filesystem on the backing store (Para [0123], [0399], [0406], new updated copy (i.e., up-to-date native copy stored in the original directory, Fig. 7-8, Para [0408] -0411]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Shaw, as previously modified with Lin, with the teaching of Lacapra by modifying Shaw such that coalesce or joining the file entities to single entity for easy management of network file in a network storage. The motivation for doing so would be managing file in easier and cost-effective way in a file directory, (Lacapra, Para [0135]).
As per claim 15-16,
Claims 15-16 are filesystem claim corresponding to filesystem claim 8-9 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claim 8-9 above.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Shaw Jr. et al (US 2018/0025026 A1), in view of Lin et al (US 2016/0004718 A1), as applied to claim 1, and 12 above, and further in view of Lacapra et al (US 2009/0077097 A1).
As per claim 1, Shaw discloses:
- an electronic filesystem comprising (Fig. 1, Para [0021], a file system),
- a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (Para [0022], [0097], a processor and memory couple to processor which stores program instructions to execute by the processor),
- write a file into the filesystem (Para [0025], Fig. 2, writing into the file system),
- store data of the file as complete native entities in a backing store at a specific mapped location (column 25, Fig. 2, the local version of the shared versioned file system stores local user files (the data) (i.e., data of the file) in their native form in cache 208 (i.e., backing store),
- wherein when a user one of modifies the file or rewrites the file entirely, the filesystem stores new file data in new complete native entities in the backing store (Fig. 2, item 206, Para [0025], [0039], when a user computer modifies a document corresponding to a file the new version of file store locally (i.e., stores new file data in native entities in the backing store)).
Shaw does not explicitly disclose read byte ranges of the file from respective entities storing a latest version of the byte ranges, collect successive writes to the file through the file system in a buffer to optimize creation of new entities to store the successive writes. However, in the same field of endeavor Lin in an analogous art disclose read byte ranges of the file from respective entities storing a latest version of the byte ranges (Para [0137], line 16-19, Para [0154], shared byte-range that allow user shared read access of the file), collect successive writes to the file through the file system in a buffer to optimize creation of new entities to store the successive writes (Para [0091], [0097], [0089], [0124], [0144] – [0145], writing file to the buffer cache for most up-to-date file data and optimization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the read and write byte range of a file in the file system taught by Lin as the means to modify or rewrites the file in native entities in the backing store of Shaw, (Shaw, Fig. 2, Para [0025], [0039], Lin, Para [0154], [0009]). Shaw and Lin are analogous prior art since they both deal with reading and writing a file in a file system. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve an operation of write object in a file system. This is because one aspect of Shaw invention is to improve an operation of a write once object store an inode-based storage system that conventionally requires rewrite-in-place functionality, as described at least in Para [0095]. Reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem is part of this process. However, Shaw doesn’t specify any particular manner in which reading and writing are processed as byte range. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the reading and writing byte range of file in the filesystem as taught by Lin. Lin describes how their byte range locking system improve client file access performance by providing a range odd client caching option of file in the file system as described at least in Para [0087], as desired by Shaw.
Combined method of Shaw and Lin does not explicitly disclose coalesce the file from a plurality of entities to a new single entity, wherein the new single entity is stored in an original location on the backing store so it can be read as an up-to-date native copy of the file originally in the filesystem on the backing store. However, in the same field of endeavor Lacapra in an analogous art disclose coalesce the file from a plurality of entities to a new single entity (Fig. 3-5, Para [0061], [0063], [0100], joining (i.e., coalesce the file) files from different entities to a single entity), wherein the new single entity is stored in an original location on the backing store so it can be read as an up-to-date native copy of the file originally in the filesystem on the backing store (Para [0123], [0399], [0406], new updated copy (i.e., up-to-date native copy stored in the original directory, Fig. 7-8, Para [0408] -0411]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Shaw, as previously modified with Lin, with the teaching of Lacapra by modifying Shaw such that coalesce or joining the file entities to single entity for easy management of network file in a network storage. The motivation for doing so would be managing file in easier and cost-effective way in a file directory, (Lacapra, Para [0135]).
As per claim 20, rejection of claim 19 is incorporated, and further Lin discloses:
- wherein the memory storing program instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to write a log in a secondary storage collected writes to the file in the filesystem (Para [0146], [0147], Fig. 13, item 1320, writing a log in the storage system).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161