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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action corresponds to application 19/181,123 which was filed on 4/16/2025 as a CIP of 17/487,935 filed 9/28/2021 and FOR INDIA 202441067483 filed 9/6/2024. Claims 1-27 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2021/0124762), hereinafter Chen, in view of Arakawa et al. (US2010/0011368), hereinafter Arakawa, and Negi et al. (US2022/0261386), hereinafter Negi.
Regarding Claim 1:
Chen teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving one or more replicated snapshots at an instance of a snapshot storage service for storage and retrieval of snapshots, the snapshot storage service instance executing on a computing node proximate a primary site, the snapshots replicated in accordance with snapshot replication transfers of a replication transaction from a client (Chen, figure 1, [0017-0019], note snapshot generation and replication by storage servers);
marking the snapshot storage service instance to reject generation of new snapshots (Chen, figure 4, [0030-0031], note suspending snapshot replication and stopping generating new snapshot data for a volume);
finalizing the snapshots by completing data structures configured to identify locations of the snapshots on an object store, wherein finalizing includes storing snapshot data and metadata as a service state of the snapshots committed to the object store (Chen, figure 1, [0017-0019, 0021-0024, 0030-0031], note snapshot generation and replication by storage servers)
rebuilding the service state of the another snapshot storage service instance from the object store and resume storage and retrieval operations of the snapshots serviced by the another snapshot storage instance (Chen, figure 4, [0030-0037], note rebuilding the volume from an identifier snapshot from the object store and resuming operations).
While Chen teaches halting snapshot generation, Chen doesn’t specifically teach finalizing the snapshots by completing index data structures configured to identify locations of the snapshots on an object store, wherein finalizing includes storing snapshot data and metadata as a service state of the snapshots committed to the object store; terminating the snapshot storage service instance proximate the primary site; instantiating another instance of the snapshot storage service at a secondary site. However, Arakawa is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Arakawa teaches:
terminating the snapshot storage service instance proximate the primary site (Arakawa, figures 11-14, [0159, 0164-0186], note migration of services to another location, e.g., primary site to secondary site, means the service was terminated at the first site and instantiated at the second site);
instantiating another instance of the snapshot storage service at a secondary site (Arakawa, figures 12-14, [0159, 0164-0186], note migration of services to another location, e.g., primary site to secondary site, means the service was terminated at the first site and instantiated at the second site);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Arakawa because all references are directed towards data management and because Arakawa would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the performance by migrating services (Arakawa, abstract).
While Chen as modified teaches halting snapshot generation and migrating services, Chen as modified doesn’t specifically teach finalizing the snapshots by completing index data structures configured to identify locations of the snapshots on an object store, wherein finalizing includes storing snapshot data and metadata as a service state of the snapshots committed to the object store. However, Negi is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Negi teaches:
finalizing the snapshots by completing index data structures configured to identify locations of the snapshots on an object store, wherein finalizing includes storing snapshot data and metadata as a service state of the snapshots committed to the object store (Negi, [0027, 0034-0035], note uploading snapshots to an object store with information associated with the block addresses for the objects, e.g., indexes).
terminating the snapshot storage service instance proximate the primary site (Negi, [0039], note failure in datacenter causing the storage service to terminate in primary site);
instantiating another instance of the snapshot storage service at a secondary site (Negi, [0039], note failure in datacenter causing the storage service to terminate in primary site and instantiating in a secondary site);
rebuilding the service state of the another snapshot storage service instance from the object store and resume storage and retrieval operations of the snapshots serviced by the another snapshot storage instance (Negi, [0039], note failure in datacenter causing the storage service to terminate in primary site and instantiating in a secondary site).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Negi because all references are directed towards data management and because Negi would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the data protection and availability of the data objects by providing archival object storage for the snapshots (Negi, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
in response to marking the snapshot storage service instance, waiting for inflight snapshot replication transfers to complete and finalize (Chen, figure 1, [0017-0019, 0021-0024, 0030-0031], note snapshot generation and replication by storage servers; note when the suspends snapshot generation is only suspending new snapshots, which is interpreted to mean existing actions are completed).
Claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 11 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2 respectively, except claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 2.
Claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 19 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2 respectively, except claim 20 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Arakawa, Negi, and Wei et al. (US2016/0328168), hereinafter Wei.
Regarding Claim 3:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
in response to marking the snapshot storage service instance (Chen, figure 4, [0017-0019, 0021-0024, 0030-0031], note suspending snapshot services).
While Chen as modified teaches suspending snapshot services, Chen as modified doesn’t specifically teach aborting snapshots after a period of time. However, Wei is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Wei teaches:
in response to marking the snapshot storage service instance, aborting inflight snapshot replication transfers after elapse of a configurable period of time (Wei, [0068], note aborting snapshots after a configurable amount of time, e.g., timer threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Wei because all references are directed towards data management and because Wei would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing timeout threshold (Wei, [0002, 0068]).
Claim 12 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3 respectively, except claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 3.
Claim 21 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3 respectively, except claim 21 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Arakawa, Negi, Wei and Ren et al. (US2017/0004051), hereinafter Ren.
Regarding Claim 4:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
While Chen as modified teaches suspending snapshot services, Chen as modified doesn’t specifically teach wherein the configurable period of time approximates a recovery point objective. However, Ren is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Ren teaches:
wherein the configurable period of time approximates a recovery point objective (Ren, claim 6, [0021, 0040], note using RPO to govern snapshots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Ren because all references are directed towards data management and because Ren would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing a retention policy such as RPOs.
Claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4 respectively, except claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 4.
Claim 22 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4 respectively, except claim 22 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5-7, 14-16, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Arakawa, Negi, and Yochai et al. (US8688935), hereinafter Yochai.
Regarding Claim 5:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
wherein marking of the snapshot storage service instance (Chen, figure 4, [0030-0031], note suspending snapshot replication and stopping generating new snapshot data for a volume).
While Chen as modified teaches suspending snapshot services, Chen as modified doesn’t specifically teach asserting a flag that indicates to the snapshot storage service instance to notify the client to cease generation of new snapshots. However, Yochai is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Yochai teaches:
asserting a flag that indicates to the snapshot storage service instance to notify the client to cease generation of new snapshots (Yochai, column 5 line 65 – column 6 line 11, note snapshot management includes flags indicating the various states related to the snapshot, which is interpreted to mean the flag would be a notification of the suspending of snapshots when combined with the previous references).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Yochai because all references are directed towards data management and because Yochai would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing a snapshot state flags by the management module.
Regarding Claim 6:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
de-asserting the flag to notify the client to resume replication of the snapshots to the another snapshot storage service instance at the secondary site (Arakawa, figures 12-14, [0159, 0164-0186], note migration of services to another location, e.g., primary site to secondary site, means the service was terminated at the first site and instantiated at the second site) (Negi, [0039], note failure in datacenter causing the storage service to terminate in primary site and instantiating in a secondary site) (Yochai, column 5 line 65 – column 6 line 11, note snapshot management includes flags indicating the various states related to the snapshot, which is interpreted to mean the de-asserted flag would be a notification to resume snapshots when combined with the previous references);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Arakawa because all references are directed towards data management and because Arakawa would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the performance by migrating services (Arakawa, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Negi because all references are directed towards data management and because Negi would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the data protection and availability of the data objects by providing archival object storage for the snapshots (Negi, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Yochai because all references are directed towards data management and because Yochai would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing a snapshot state flags by the management module.
Regarding Claim 7:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
de-asserting the flag to notify the client to initiate further snapshot replication transactions to the another snapshot storage service instance at the secondary site (Arakawa, figures 12-14, [0159, 0164-0186], note migration of services to another location, e.g., primary site to secondary site, means the service was terminated at the first site and instantiated at the second site) (Negi, [0039], note failure in datacenter causing the storage service to terminate in primary site and instantiating in a secondary site) (Yochai, column 5 line 65 – column 6 line 11, note snapshot management includes flags indicating the various states related to the snapshot, which is interpreted to mean the de-asserted flag would be a notification to initiate further snapshot replication when combined with the previous references).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Arakawa because all references are directed towards data management and because Arakawa would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the performance by migrating services (Arakawa, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Negi because all references are directed towards data management and because Negi would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the data protection and availability of the data objects by providing archival object storage for the snapshots (Negi, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Yochai because all references are directed towards data management and because Yochai would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing a snapshot state flags by the management module.
Claim 14 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6 respectively, except claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 6.
Claim 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 7 respectively, except claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 7.
Claim 23 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 23 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 24 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6 respectively, except claim 24 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 6.
Claim 25 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 7 respectively, except claim 25 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8, 17, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Arakawa, Negi, and Hughes et al. (US9189495), hereinafter Hughes.
Regarding Claim 8:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
rebuild of the another snapshot storage service (Chen, figure 4, [0030-0037], note rebuilding the volume from an identifier snapshot from the object store and resuming operations) (Negi, [0039], note failure in datacenter causing the storage service to terminate in primary site and instantiating in a secondary site);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Negi because all references are directed towards data management and because Negi would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the data protection and availability of the data objects by providing archival object storage for the snapshots (Negi, [0039]).
While Chen as modified teaches suspending snapshot services, Chen as modified doesn’t specifically teach determining committed snapshots during the rebuild of the another snapshot storage service. However, Hughes is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Hughes teaches:
determining committed snapshots during the rebuild of the another snapshot storage service (Hughes, claim 2, column 4 lines 15-26, column 15 lines 16-20, note determining committed snapshots while rebuilding another snapshot service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Hughes because all references are directed towards data management and because Hughes would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the data protection and availability of the data objects by enabling replication and restoration (Hughes, column 1 lines 5-10).
Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 8 respectively, except claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 8.
Claim 26 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 8 respectively, except claim 26 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9, 18, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Arakawa, Negi, Wei, and George et al. (US2020/0285410), hereinafter George.
Regarding Claim 9:
Chen as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Chen as modified further teaches:
aborted inflight replicated data (Wei, [0068], note aborting snapshots after a configurable amount of time, e.g., timer threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Wei because all references are directed towards data management and because Wei would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing timeout threshold (Wei, [0002, 0068]).
While Chen as modified teaches suspending snapshot services, Chen as modified doesn’t specifically teach garbage collection. However, George is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and George teaches:
deleting by garbage collection aborted inflight replicated data (George, [0042], note garbage collection deleted snapshots. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the aborted snapshots as taught above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of George because all references are directed towards data management and because George would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data storage which would improve the efficiency of the system by utilizing garbage collections.
Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 9 respectively, except claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 9.
Claim 27 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 9 respectively, except claim 27 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor (Chen, figure 8, note processor) while claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 27 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 PM EST.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at 571-272-3677. 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.
/JOHN J MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 8/21/2026
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights