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 .
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 16 includes “a computer-readable storage medium” The paragraphs [0002], [0036], and [0040] of specification do not explicitly provide definition of “a computer-readable storage medium” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a snapshot method comprising generating an image file, writing metadata into storage areas, and storing data based on a copy-on-write mechanism. Thus, the claim is a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2 Prong 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation: “generating an image file corresponding to the first file in response to a snapshot request for a first file” The steps involve receiving an input request (a "snapshot request"), making an observation or evaluation of what needs to be captured, and creating a representation ("generating image file corresponding to..."). This is a classic mental process activity analogous to manually creating a photocopy or digital scan of a document when someone asks you to capture its current state. Therefore, this limitation recites the abstract idea of a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations:
writing metadata of the image file into a first preset storage area;
writing the metadata of the image file stored in the first preset storage area into a package file;
storing data of the image file in the package file based on a copy-on-write mechanism, wherein the metadata of the image file and metadata of the package file point to different physical pages, and the data of the image file and data of the package file point to a same physical page.
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field:
The additional elements “writing metadata into preset storage areas” involves storing data in storage media, “writing the metadata of the image file stored in the first preset storage area into a package file” includes read/write operations, and the copy-on-write mechanism describes a technique for storing physical page allocation in computer systems. However, when evaluated individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely apply well-known computer functions (memory writing, data transfer, copy-on-write). The claim does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field; rather, it uses conventional computer operations to implement the abstract idea of generating and storing snapshots in response to user requests.
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
The additional elements include “first preset storage area,” “package file,” and references to “physical pages.” When evaluated individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the recited machine components are generic computer resources used as tools to perform the abstract idea. These components do not meaningfully limit the claim to a particular machine with specialized functionality beyond its ordinary capabilities.
MPEP 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
The additional elements “metadata writing operations and copy-on-write storage” are routine computer functions for managing digital information, and they do not transform any particular article to a different state or thing in a way that improves technological capabilities beyond what generic computers already accomplish.
MPEP 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations:
The additional elements describe conventional computer operations that are well-understood and routine in the field of file storage systems. The claim covers generic steps for writing data and managing physical pages using standard copy-on-write techniques that do not meaningfully limit the scope of the abstract idea or improve technological capabilities.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception:
The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea rather than meaningful integration into a practical application. These steps writing metadata to storage, copying metadata to a package file, and storing data using copy-on-write mechanisms do not go beyond implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. The additional elements function as tools to perform the recited mental process rather than providing an improvement to technology or solving a technical problem in a meaningful way.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
The additional elements constitute insignificant extra-solution activity because they represent conventional post-solution activities (data storage and retrieval) that do not add significantly more to the claim. These activities are routine, conventional post-solution data handling that does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
The additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the technological environment described is conventional for general-purpose computing systems. The claim does not improve the functioning of computers or any other technology.
Step 2B Examine the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination-to see if they provide an inventive concept that adds "significantly more" than the exception itself. The additional elements do not demonstrate unconventional use because all recited operations (writing metadata to storage, transferring data between files, copy-on-write mechanism) are routine, well-understood, and conventional practices in computer memory management and file systems. Copy-on-write is a standard technique used in operating systems and virtualization technologies. The claim limitations do not describe a specific, non-generic solution to a specific technical problem that would qualify as factual inquiries under Berkheimer v. HP Inc. While the copy-on-write mechanism is described with some details regarding metadata and data pointer configurations, this description does not amount to a particular way of achieving an improvement. The claim does not explain how the copy-on-write mechanism solves a technical problem that improves computer capabilities or addresses deficiencies in existing technology. When evaluated individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements merely apply conventional computer functions (memory writing, data transfer, copy-on-write storage) to automate the mental process of generating snapshots in response to user requests. The claim does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; it does not meaningfully limit the scope of the abstract idea through particular machine configurations or transformations; and it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception on generic computer resources. Therefore, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that renders the claim patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the metadata of the image file and metadata of the first file point to different physical pages, and the data of the image file and data of the first file point to a same physical page" The claim described is merely a more specific of the copy-on-write mechanism without providing any additional technical solution or improvement to the functionality of the computer. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the generating an image file corresponding to the first file comprises: writing the metadata of the first file into the image file, and storing the data of the first file in the image file based on the copy-on-write mechanism” This limitation describes writing metadata into a file and storing data using COW are conventional computer file system operations that do not improve technology. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “…wherein the writing the metadata of the first file into the image file, and storing the data of the first file in the image file based on the copy- on-write mechanism comprises: creating a first blank file, and writing the metadata of the first file into the first blank file; and performing copy-on-write on the data of the first file, and storing the data of the first file in the first blank file into which the metadata of the first file is written, to obtain the image file corresponding to the first file”. Creating files and using copy-on-write mechanisms are well-understood, conventional practices in computer storage technology that do not constitute a technological improvement beyond their ordinary application. The ordered combination of these steps merely implements the abstract idea through standard technical means without adding significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, claim 4 remains patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the writing the metadata of the first file into the image file comprises: writing the metadata of the first file into a second preset storage area; and writing the metadata of the first file stored in the second preset storage area into the image file.” Writing data between different storage locations is a conventional computer operation that does not improve technology or solve a technical problem beyond what is already taught by standard memory management practices. Claim 5 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that do not provide significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the second preset storage area is located in user space, and the storing the data of the first file in the image file based on the copy- on-write mechanism comprises: performing copy-on-write on the data of the first file in kernel space, and storing the data of the first file in the image file.” Kernel and user space are well-understood concepts in operating system architecture that do not constitute unconventional configurations when applied generically to memory management operations. Claim 6 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that amount to generic computer implementation details rather than meaningful technical improvements.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first file comprises a plurality of sub-files, the image file corresponding to the first file comprises a plurality of image sub-files, and the writing metadata of the image file into a first preset storage area comprises: reorganizing a physical structure of metadata of the plurality of image sub-files based on a preset packaging standard format; and writing the reorganized metadata of the plurality of image sub-files into the first preset storage area.” This limitation adds specificity about handling multiple files and reorganizing metadata according to a "preset packaging standard format," but does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 7 remains patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the generating an image file corresponding to the first file comprises: invoking a preset kernel interface to copy the metadata of the first file and perform copy-on-write on the data of the first file, to obtain the image file corresponding to the first file.” The kernel interface is merely a mechanism for executing well-understood memory management operations without providing any technical solution or unconventional configuration. Claim 8 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer platform.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the invoking a preset kernel interface to copy the metadata of the first file and perform copy-on-write on the data of the first file comprises: invoking the preset kernel interface to copy the metadata of the first file and perform copy-on- write on the data of the first file in kernel space.” The kernel space designation describes where standard memory management operations are performed without explaining any technical improvement or unconventional implementation. Claim 9 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that do not provide significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first file comprises a plurality of sub-files, and the invoking a preset kernel interface to copy the metadata of the first file and perform copy-on-write on the data of the first file comprises: searching user space for a to-be-imaged sub-file; and invoking the preset kernel interface to copy metadata of the to-be-imaged sub-file and perform copy-on-write on data of the to-be-imaged sub-file in kernel space.” This limitation adds a search step across multiple files but does not provide an inventive concept. Searching for files in user space is a conventional computer operation that does not improve technology beyond standard file system functionality. Claim 10 remains patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional elements do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first preset storage area is located in user space, and the storing data of the image file in the package file based on a copy-on- write mechanism comprises: performing copy-on-write on the data of the image file in kernel space, and storing the data of the image file in the package file.” This limitation describes kernel/user space separation for storage operations but does not add an inventive concept. Claim 11 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that amount to generic computer implementation details rather than meaningful technical improvements.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the writing the metadata of the image file stored in the first preset storage area into a package file, and storing data of the image file in the package file based on a copy-on-write mechanism comprises: creating a second blank file, and writing the metadata of the image file stored in the first preset storage area into the second blank file; and performing copy-on-write on the data of the image file, and storing the data of the image file in the second blank file into which the metadata of the image file is written, to obtain the package file.”
This limitation describes a specific sequence for creating a package file but does not provide an inventive concept. Creating files, writing metadata, and performing COW operations are conventional computer storage techniques that do not improve technology beyond their ordinary application. Claim 12 remains patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the first file comprises all files of a first application, the method further comprising: outputting prompt information associated with the first application, wherein the prompt information indicates that an operation can be performed on the first application.” The limitation describes how users are informed about available operations, which is merely post-solution activity related to presenting output rather than meaningful technical implementation. Claim 13 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and do not provide significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the first file comprises all files of a first application, the generating an image file corresponding to the first file, the method further comprising: creating an image root directory corresponding to a root directory of the first application, wherein the image root directory is used to store the image file.” Creating directories and using them for storage organization are conventional computer file system operations that do not improve technology beyond standard practices. Claim 14 remains directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer platform.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the image root directory is the same as the root directory of the first application, or the image root directory is a subset of the root directory of the first application.” Specifying whether directories are identical or subsets describes organizational relationships without providing any technical improvement beyond conventional file system management practices. Claim 15 remains patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 1. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Claim 16
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites “a computer-readable storage medium”. The paragraphs [0002], [0036], and [0040] of specification do not explicitly provide definition of “a computer-readable storage medium” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent, which is not one of the statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
U.S. Pub 2018/0052674 A1 – Freese discloses a system also includes a file creation component to create a blank file on the storage device. The system further includes a block copy component to edit the blank to include a block-for-block copy of a boot partition. The system further includes a logical copy component to copy data determined to be live from a root partition to the blank file. The root partition includes live and unreferenced versions of a stored file.
U.S. Pub 2018/0089224 A1 – Muthuswamy discloses in response to fulfilment of a tiering policy, dividing, by a cloud provider engine of a computing device, data blocks of a filesystem object into data chunks. Some examples comprise generating, by the cloud provider engine, a current manifest file in a local memory and causing the cloud storage system to generate a current pseudo folder in the cloud storage system corresponding to a particular epoch of the filesystem object. Some other examples comprise tiering, by the cloud provider engine, the data chunks and the current manifest file to the current pseudo folder, the current manifest including pointers to the data chunks corresponding to the filesystem object at the particular epoch.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
