DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2025, 08/12/2025, 10/01/2025, 12/17/2025, 01/23/2026, 03/06/2026, 04/21/2026, 06/01/2026 and 08/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 recites generating a first security key, generating a second security key and generating a session key.
The limitation of receiving data from a third party, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generating a key. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional element – using a computing device to perform the steps. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function), such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10 and 16 includes limitations similar to the limitations of independent claim 1 and rejected under 3 USC 101 for being directed to abstract idea for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-20 do not cure the deficiency of the independent claims and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract idea.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,306,802. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the patent.
Claims 1-20 of the patent are mapped to claims 1-20 of the instant application respectively.
Instant Application No. 19/179,880
US Patent No. 12,306,802
1. A method, comprising: generating, by a computing device, a first security key associated with a source file system, the source file system being configured to send a snapshot delta during a replication process, and the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system;
1. A method, comprising: generating, by a computing device, a first security key associated with a source file system, based at least in part on a first master key, for encrypting and decrypting a plurality of file keys in the source file system, the source file system being configured to send snapshot deltas during a replication process, and the snapshot deltas being identified between two snapshots of the source file system;
generating, by the computing device, a second security key associated with a target file system, the target file system being configured to receive the snapshot delta during the replication process;
generating, by the computing device, a second security key associated with a target file system, based at least in part on a second master key, for encrypting and decrypting a plurality of file keys in the target file system, the target file system being configured to receive the snapshot deltas during the replication process;
and generating, by the computing device, a session key for protecting the snapshot delta transferred between the source file system and the target file system during the replication process.
and generating, by the computing device, a session key, based at least in part on a third master key, for encrypting and decrypting the snapshot deltas transferred between the source file system and the target file system during the replication process, the session key being valid for a session; wherein the first master key, the second master key, and the third master key are different keys.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0110886) in view of Kucherov et al. (US Patent No. 10,860,239).
Regarding independent claim 1, Moyer teaches a method, comprising: generating, by a computing device, a first security key associated with a source file system, the source file system being configured to send a snapshot delta during a replication process (Moyer, page 7, paragraph 0065; generate first key pair for enclave A); generating, by the computing device, a second security key associated with a target file system, the target file system being configured to receive the snapshot delta during the replication process (Moyer, page 7, paragraph 0070 and page 8, paragraph 0080; generate second key pair for enclave D; enclave B copies/loads encrypted snapshots); and generating, by the computing device, a session key for protecting the snapshot delta transferred between the source file system and the target file system during the replication process (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0056-0058; generate snapshot key and encrypted snapshot with snapshot key).
Moyer does not explicitly teach the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system.
Kucherov teaches and the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system (Kucherov, column 19, lines 3-40 and column 18, lines 16-54; multiple snapshot).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer with the teaching of Kucherov for multiple snapshots to provide the advantage of protecting against data loss (Kucherov, column 1, lines 27-45).
Regarding claim 3, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the method wherein the target file system comprises an object storage device configured to receive the snapshot delta from the source file system (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0059-0061; host process B to enclave B).
Regarding claim 4, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the method further comprising: encrypting the snapshot delta using the session key before transferring the snapshot delta to the object storage device; and decrypting the snapshot delta using the session key after transferring the snapshot delta to the target file system (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0057-0059 and page 8, paragraphs 0077-0079; enclave A encrypts snapshot with snapshot key and enclave B decrypted snapshot with snapshot key).
Regarding claim 5, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the method further comprising transferring the session key from a first control plane of the source file system to a second control plane of the target file system (Moyer, page 8, paragraphs 0076-0079; transmit encrypted snapshot key).
Regarding claim 7, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the method wherein each file key of a plurality of file keys in the source file system is associated with a particular file in the source file system and is for encrypting or decrypting file data of the particular file in the source file system, and wherein each file key of the plurality of file keys in the target file system is associated with a particular file in the target file system and is for encrypting and decrypting file data of the particular file in the target file system (Moyer, page 7, paragraphs 0065-0071 and page 8, paragraphs 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 8, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the method further comprising: authenticating a first key requester in the source file system for requesting use of the first security key; and authenticating a second key requester in the target file system for requesting use of the second security key (Moyer, pages 7-8, paragraphs 0067-0073; verify identities of enclaves A & B).
Regarding claim 9, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the method wherein authenticating the first key requester in the source file system comprises checking an identification number of the replication process and an identification number of the source file system (Moyer, pages 7-8, paragraphs 0067-0073; verify identities of enclaves A & B).
Regarding independent claim 10, Moyer teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: generating, by a computing device, a first security key associated with a source file system, the source file system being configured to send a snapshot delta during a replication process (Moyer, page 7, paragraph 0065; generate first key pair for enclave A); generating, by the computing device, a second security key associated with a target file system, the target file system being configured to receive the snapshot delta during the replication process (Moyer, page 7, paragraph 0070 and page 8, paragraph 0080; generate second key pair for enclave D; enclave B copies/loads encrypted snapshots); and generating, by the computing device, a session key for protecting the snapshot delta transferred between the source file system and the target file system during the replication process (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0056-0058; generate snapshot key and encrypted snapshot with snapshot key).
Moyer does not explicitly teach the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system.
Kucherov teaches and the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system (Kucherov, column 19, lines 3-40 and column 18, lines 16-54; multiple snapshot).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer with the teaching of Kucherov for multiple snapshots to provide the advantage of protecting against data loss (Kucherov, column 1, lines 27-45).
Regarding claim 12, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the target file system comprises an object storage device configured to receive the snapshot delta from the source file system (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0059-0061; host process B to enclave B).
Regarding claim 13, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising: encrypting the snapshot delta using the session key before transferring the snapshot delta to the object storage device; and decrypting the snapshot delta using the session key after transferring the snapshot delta to the target file system (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0057-0059 and page 8, paragraphs 0077-0079; enclave A encrypts snapshot with snapshot key and enclave B decrypted snapshot with snapshot key).
Regarding claim 14, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising transferring the session key from a first control plane of the source file system to a second control plane of the target file system (Moyer, page 8, paragraphs 0076-0079; transmit encrypted snapshot key).
Regarding independent claim 16, Moyer teaches a computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform: generating, by the computing device, a first security key associated with a source file system, the source file system being configured to send a snapshot delta during a replication process (Moyer, page 7, paragraph 0065; generate first key pair for enclave A); generating, by the computing device, a second security key associated with a target file system, the target file system being configured to receive the snapshot delta during the replication process (Moyer, page 7, paragraph 0070 and page 8, paragraph 0080; generate second key pair for enclave D; enclave B copies/loads encrypted snapshots); and generating, by the computing device, a session key for protecting the snapshot delta transferred between the source file system and the target file system during the replication process (Moyer, page 6, paragraphs 0056-0058; generate snapshot key and encrypted snapshot with snapshot key).
Moyer does not explicitly teach the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system.
Kucherov teaches and the snapshot delta being associated with two snapshots of the source file system (Kucherov, column 19, lines 3-40 and column 18, lines 16-54; multiple snapshot).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer with the teaching of Kucherov for multiple snapshots to provide the advantage of protecting against data loss (Kucherov, column 1, lines 27-45).
Regarding claim 19, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the computing device further comprising: authenticating a first key requester in the source file system for requesting use of the first security key; and authenticating a second key requester in the target file system for requesting use of the second security key (Moyer, pages 7-8, paragraphs 0067-0073; verify identities of enclaves A & B).
Regarding claim 20, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches the computing device wherein authenticating the first key requester in the source file system comprises checking an identification number of the replication process and an identification number of the source file system (Moyer, pages 7-8, paragraphs 0067-0073; verify identities of enclaves A & B).
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0110886) in view of Kucherov et al. (US Patent No. 10,860,239) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of OLSON et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0409611).
Regarding claim 2, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
Moyer in view Kucherov does not explicitly teach the method wherein the session key is valid for a session, and wherein the session is a duration between a start of the replication process in the source file system and an end of the replication process in the target file system.
OLSON teaches wherein the session key is valid for a session, and wherein the session is a duration between a start of the replication process in the source file system and an end of the replication process in the target file system (OLSON, page 7, paragraph 0052; session key for duration of session).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer in view of Kucherov with the teachings of OLSON for a session key for the duration of the session to provide the advantage of securely managing traffic (OLSON, page 4, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 11, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 10.
Moyer in view Kucherov does not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the session key is valid for a session, and wherein the session is a duration between a start of the replication process in the source file system and an end of the replication process in the target file system.
OLSON teaches wherein the session key is valid for a session, and wherein the session is a duration between a start of the replication process in the source file system and an end of the replication process in the target file system (OLSON, page 7, paragraph 0052; session key for duration of session).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer in view of Kucherov with the teachings of OLSON for a session key for the duration of the session to provide the advantage of securely managing traffic (OLSON, page 4, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 16.
Moyer in view Kucherov does not explicitly teach the computing device wherein the session key is valid for a session, and wherein the session is a duration between a start of the replication process in the source file system and an end of the replication process in the target file system.
OLSON teaches wherein the session key is valid for a session, and wherein the session is a duration between a start of the replication process in the source file system and an end of the replication process in the target file system (OLSON, page 7, paragraph 0052; session key for duration of session).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer in view of Kucherov with the teachings of OLSON for a session key for the duration of the session to provide the advantage of securely managing traffic (OLSON, page 4, paragraph 0030).
Claim(s) 6, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0110886) in view of Kucherov et al. (US Patent No. 10,860,239) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Konersmann (US Pub No. 2005/0232427).
Regarding claim 6, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
Moyer in view Kucherov does not explicitly teach the method wherein the session key is associated with a globally unique resource identifier.
Konersmann teaches wherein the session key is associated with a globally unique resource identifier (Konersmann, page 4, paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer in view of Kucherov with the teachings of Konersmann for a session key to be based on a GUID to provide the advantage of securely exchange (Konersmann, page 1, paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 15, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 10.
Moyer in view Kucherov does not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the session key is associated with a globally unique resource identifier.
Konersmann teaches wherein the session key is associated with a globally unique resource identifier (Konersmann, page 4, paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer in view of Kucherov with the teachings of Konersmann for a session key to be based on a GUID to provide the advantage of securely exchange (Konersmann, page 1, paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 18, Moyer in view of Kucherov teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 16.
Moyer in view Kucherov does not explicitly teach the computing device wherein the session key is associated with a globally unique resource identifier.
Konersmann teaches wherein the session key is associated with a globally unique resource identifier (Konersmann, page 4, paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moyer in view of Kucherov with the teachings of Konersmann for a session key to be based on a GUID to provide the advantage of securely exchange (Konersmann, page 1, paragraph 0002).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0263657).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAQUEAL D WADE whose telephone number is (571)270-0357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/SHAQUEAL D WADE-WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights