Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 08/06/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 14, 16, 18-20 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent claims. Claims 1, 2, 4-20 are presented in this office action.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional Application No. 63/642,144 filed on 05/03/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Response to amendment/arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as 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, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. See response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Please see the response below. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Response to 101 Rejection
6. Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejection on pages 11, 12 states “the claim requires a particular distributed storage arrangement in which metadata and content are not merely considered separately, but are stored at different components of a computer system, something the human mind is simply not equipped to do. The claimed metadata is also not generic information capable of being mentally manipulated”. Applicant’s arguments on page 14 states “The amended claims reflect that disclosed improvement … Accordingly, the claim itself reflects the specification's disclosed solution of separating the content and the metadata, with metadata having pointers to where content is stored being available from the background platform while the content is stored remotely at the object storage service”. Applicant’s arguments on page 17 states “the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as storing the metadata and content separately merely recite a mental process. The limitation of storing metadata and content separately under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element that precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components, or a programmed computer as a tool to map the metadata stored in computing device/ storage/ background to the content/ object storage does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of, the invention being “computer”, “object storage”, “background platform/ computing device” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of receiving a request for data and providing the metadata that points to the content, amount to mere data gathering step which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the claim include receiving a request for data and providing the metadata that points to the content that are insufficient 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 recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The “receiving a request for data and providing” element that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, since this generic data outputting on a user interface is well, understood, routine and conventional (WURC). Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 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. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106; See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Under the 2019 PEG, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Here, claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Courts also consider a mental process as one that can be performed in the human mind and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Claims 1, 10 and 16 recites a mental process because the steps recite limitations of “storing metadata and content separately”, “receiving metadata of the object receipt time”,” metadata pointing to the location of the storage service”, “mapping the metadata based on the receipt time”, “receiving a query and providing the data” are recited at a high level of generality and do not place meaningful limits on the abstract idea which is a task that can be performed by a human with the use of the computer as a tool. These limitations are essentially steps of generating and manipulating data at a high level of generality, which can be performed by a person using a computer as a tool.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In this case, as explained above, claims 1, 10 and 16 merely recite a mental process. These limitations describe ingesting stream of data and identify the object send time and received time. Based on the object received time, remapping the metadata for objects/ content received in order, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element that precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to receive data and identify the send time and received time of the object and arrange the objects based on the received time. And receiving a request to the storage location, provide the data based on the metadata, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. 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. While claims 1, 10 and 16 recite additional components in the form of background platform, distributed platform, object storage service, memory, processor, machine-storage medium having instructions, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See 2019 PEG. The additional elements “receiving/ ingesting”, “providing”, “storing of metadata and content separately” amount to mere data gathering steps which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, it is determined whether the claims provide an inventive concept. In this case, claims 1, 10 and 16 do not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are steps involving processes that can be practically performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, or as explained above, using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. For example, a The “receiving/ ingesting”, “providing”, “storing of metadata and content separately” elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
The remaining dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-20 which impose additional limitations explained above also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 1, 10 and 16 these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claims 1, 10 and 16. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
Response to 103 Rejection
8. Applicant’s arguments on page 18 states “That is not the claimed timestamp. Claim 1 requires "first metadata" that includes "first pointers relating to first locations of first content stored at the object storage service" and "a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform." Claim 1 likewise requires "second metadata" that includes "second pointers relating to second locations of second content stored at the object storage service" and "a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform." The difference matters because the claimed timestamp is part of metadata sent to the background platform and corresponds to the send time of that metadata. Zohar's timestamp, by contrast, is part of a PDR generated by a storage system in response to a write command and indicates when partition data was stored in the system. A PDR timestamp used to identify a version of stored logical-volume data is therefore not a timestamp corresponding to when metadata having object-storage-location pointers was sent to a background platform”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Hale et al teaches, “receiving first metadata at the background platform at a first receipt time….”, “receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time…” (Paragraph [0036] discloses, receiving streams of data objects that need to be stored at different times (Examiner interprets time as metadata of the object/ received time of the object) and storing the data separately/ remotely. The metadata/ time series data can be pointed to the stored object which is stored remotely (See Paragraph [0023] for storing the metadata and content/ object separately).
Hale et al further teaches, the amended limitation “wherein the object storage service is siloed from the background platform, and wherein the first metadata and the second metadata are stored at the background platform such that the first content and the second content are remotely stored from the first metadata and the second metadata” (Paragraph [0023] discloses, metadata is stored in the memory stores provided on computing devices which includes the locations of the data storage which may be stored remotely).
Therefore, Hale et al teaches, the argued limitation and the amended limitation.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on page 18 states “Zohar's cited disclosure is different from the claimed timestamp limitations”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Zohar et al teaches, “first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time, the second metadata comprising: second pointers relating to second locations of second content stored at the object storage service; and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform” (Paragraphs [0012], [0016] discloses, based on first and second write commands, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received).
Therefore, Zohar et al teaches, the argued limitation and the amended limitation.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on page 19 states “Zohar's PDR pointer chain and time-based read process do not teach generating "a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata."
Examiner respectfully disagrees as from “generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata.” (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is access the data based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data (Examiner interprets remapping as arranging the data in an order based on received timestamp to access the data)).
Kuemmel’s et al teaches, “remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time”, “generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata” (Paragraphs [0145-[0149] discloses, generating a log of sequences, remapping/ arranging of data based on received timestamp. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Therefore Zohar et al in view of Kuemmel et al teach the argued limitations.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale; Brandon (US 20200028756 A1) in view of Zohar; Ofir (US 20070033370 A1) and in further view of Kuemmel; Sascha (US 20180191588 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hale; Brandon (US 20200028756 A1) teaches, a system comprising: an object storage service; a distributed platform communicatively coupled with the object storage service; and a background platform communicatively coupled with the object storage service, wherein the object storage service is siloed from the background platform, and wherein the first metadata and the second metadata are stored at the background platform such that the first content and the second content are remotely stored from the first metadata and the second metadata (Paragraph [0023] discloses, metadata is stored in the memory stores provided on computing devices which includes the locations of the data storage which may be stored remotely).the background platform comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Fig. 1) comprising: receiving first metadata at the background platform at a first receipt time, the first metadata comprising: first pointers relating to first locations of first content stored at the object storage service (Paragraph [0036] discloses streaming platform includes respective ingestion stream with respect to the received object and the metadata to located the stored object. Paragraph [0045] discloses, associating and tracking data over time)
receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time, the second metadata comprising: second pointers relating to second locations of second content stored at the object storage service (Paragraph [0045] discloses, associating and tracking data over time based on the metadata value);
Hale et al fails to explicitly teach, and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time; generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request.
Zohar; Ofir (US 20070033370 A1) teaches, and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0012] in response to the first write command, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received). [0013] storing the first data at a first physical location. [0035] associate the first PDR with the first physical location. Also see [0021]);
and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0016] responsively to the second write command, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received. [0017] storing the second data at a second physical location. [0039] associate the second PDR with the second physical location);
generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is access the data based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data (Examiner interprets remapping as arranging the data in an order based on received timestamp to access the data)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al by providing and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time; generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request, as taught by Zohar et al (Paragraphs [0012], [0016], [0083]-[0086]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would provide efficient methods and apparatus for providing continuous data protection (CDP) in a data processing system as taught by Zohar et al (Paragraph [0005]).
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time.
Kuemmel; Sascha (US 20180191588 A1) teaches, generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149] discloses, send the data/ packets to the endpoint system. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al and Zohar et al by providing remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time, as taught by Kuemmel et al (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, packet Report messages may be specifically triggered when a packet is recognized as being lost, which would be detected as a gap in the packet Sequence numbers of a stream of received packets. The packet receiver stores the packet Sequence and time of reception for each packet received, so that this information is available to generate a packet Report when desired as taught by Kuemmel et al (Paragraph [0128]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the first send time occurs before the second send time and the second receipt time occurs before the first receipt time and remapping the first metadata and the second metadata comprises resequencing the first metadata and the second metadata such that the second metadata is ahead of the first metadata in the log of sequences based on the second receipt time occurring before the first receipt time.
Kuemmel further teaches, wherein the first send time occurs before the second send time and the second receipt time occurs before the first receipt time; and remapping the first metadata and the second metadata comprises resequencing the first metadata and the second metadata such that the second metadata is ahead of the first metadata in the log of sequences based on the second receipt time occurring before the first receipt time (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149] discloses, send the data/ packets to the endpoint system. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of 1.
Zohar et al further teaches, wherein in response to receiving the request for the one of the first locations or the second locations, the instructions further cause the distributed platform to perform operations comprising: retrieving, at the background platform, one of the first content or the second content from the object storage service; and providing, at the background platform, the one of the first content or the second content to a requestor of one of the first content or the second content; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is accessed based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Zohar et al further teaches, wherein the first timestamp is different from the first receipt time (Paragraph [0148]-[0149] discloses, the send time for D4 is different from the received time (Examiner interprets the send time as the timestamp when the creator first created the packet for transmission (Paragraph [0052]) and the received time is when the packet is delivered for the first packet)).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Zohar et al further teaches, wherein the second timestamp is different from the second receipt time (Paragraph [0148]-[0149] discloses, the send time for D4 is different from the received time (Examiner interprets the send time as the timestamp when the creator first created the packet for transmission (Paragraph [0052]) and the received time is when the packet is delivered for the second packet)).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Hale et al further teaches, wherein the first content is stored at the object storage service using a first type of storage service and the second content is stored at the object storage service using a second type of storage service different from the first type of storage service (Paragraph [0039] discloses, storing content in first type of storage as high performance database and storing content in second type of storage as the long-term storage).
Regarding independent claim 10, Hale; Brandon (US 20200028756 A1) teaches, a method of operating a system comprising an object storage service, a distributed platform communicatively coupled with the object storage service, and a background platform communicatively coupled with the object storage service (Fig. 1), the method comprising: receiving first metadata at the background platform at a first receipt time, the first metadata comprising: first pointers relating to first locations of first content stored at the object storage service (Paragraph [0036] discloses streaming platform includes respective ingestion stream with respect to the received object and the metadata to located the stored object. Paragraph [0045] discloses, associating and tracking data over time);
wherein the object storage service is siloed from the background platform; storing the first metadata and the second metadata at the background platform such that the first content and the second content are remotely stored from the first metadata and the second metadata (Paragraph [0023] discloses, metadata is stored in the memory stores provided on computing devices which includes the locations of the data storage which may be stored remotely);
the second metadata comprising: second pointers relating to second locations of second content stored at the object storage service (Paragraph [0045] discloses, associating and tracking data over time based on the metadata value);
Hale et al fails to explicitly teach, and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time, and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time; generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request.
Zohar; Ofir (US 20070033370 A1) teaches, and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0012] in response to the first write command, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received). [0013] storing the first data at a first physical location. [0035] associate the first PDR with the first physical location. Also see [0021]);
and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0016] responsively to the second write command, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received. [0017] storing the second data at a second physical location. [0039] associate the second PDR with the second physical location);
and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0016] responsively to the second write command, generating a second PDR having a second timestamp. [0017] storing the second data at a second physical location. [0039] associate the second PDR with the second physical location);
receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is access the data based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al by providing and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time; generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request, as taught by Zohar et al (Paragraphs [0012], [0016], [0083]-[0086]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would provide efficient methods and apparatus for providing continuous data protection (CDP) in a data processing system as taught by Zohar et al (Paragraph [0005]).
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time.
Kuemmel; Sascha (US 20180191588 A1) teaches, receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time. (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149] discloses, send the data/ packets to the endpoint system. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al and Zohar et al by providing remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time, as taught by Kuemmel et al (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, packet Report messages may be specifically triggered when a packet is recognized as being lost, which would be detected as a gap in the packet Sequence numbers of a stream of received packets. The packet receiver stores the packet Sequence and time of reception for each packet received, so that this information is available to generate a packet Report when desired as taught by Kuemmel et al (Paragraph [0128]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the method of claim 10.
Kuemmel et al further teaches, wherein the first send time occurs before the second send time and the second receipt time occurs before the first receipt time and remapping the first metadata and the second metadata comprises resequencing the first metadata and the second metadata such that the second metadata is ahead of the first metadata in the log of sequences based on the second receipt time occurring before the first receipt time (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149] discloses, send the data/ packets to the endpoint system. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the method of claim 10.
Zohar et al further teaches, wherein in response to receiving the request for the one of the first locations or the second locations, the method further comprises: retrieving, at the background platform, one of the first content or the second content from the object storage service; and providing, at the background platform, the one of the first content or the second content to a requestor of one of the first content or the second content (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is accessed based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the method of claim 10.
Hale et al further teaches, wherein the first content is stored at the object storage service using a first type of storage service and the second content is stored at the object storage service using a second type of storage service different from the first type of storage service (Paragraph [0039] discloses, storing content in first type of storage as high performance database and storing content in second type of storage as the long-term storage).
Regarding independent claim 16, Hale; Brandon (US 20200028756 A1) teaches, a machine-storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions executable by at least one hardware processor to perform operations (Fig. 1) comprising: receiving first metadata at a background platform at a first receipt time, the first metadata comprising: first pointers relating to first locations of first content stored at an object storage service Paragraph [0036] discloses streaming platform includes respective ingestion stream with respect to the received object and the metadata to located the stored object. Paragraph [0045] discloses, associating and tracking data over time);
the second metadata comprising: second pointers relating to second locations of second content stored at the object storage service (Paragraph [0045] discloses, associating and tracking data over time based on the metadata value);
storing the first metadata and the second metadata at the background platform such that the first content and the second content are remotely stored from the first metadata and the second metadata, wherein the object storage service is siloed from the background platform (Paragraph [0023] discloses, metadata is stored in the memory stores provided on computing devices which includes the locations of the data storage which may be stored remotely);
Hale et al fails to explicitly teach, and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time; and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time; generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request.
Zohar; Ofir (US 20070033370 A1) teaches, and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0012] in response to the first write command, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received). [0013] storing the first data at a first physical location. [0035] associate the first PDR with the first physical location. Also see [0021]);
and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform (Paragraph [0016] responsively to the second write command, generating respective timestamps and then writing/ storing the data in the object storage/ physical location with respect to the timestamp that it was received. [0017] storing the second data at a second physical location. [0039] associate the second PDR with the second physical location);
generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is access the data based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data (Examiner interprets remapping as arranging the data in an order based on received timestamp to access the data)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al by providing and a first timestamp corresponding to a first send time at which the first metadata was sent to the background platform; and a second timestamp corresponding to a second send time at which the second metadata was sent to the background platform; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time; generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving a request for one of the first locations or the second locations; and providing one of the first metadata or the second metadata in response to receiving the request, as taught by Zohar et al (Paragraphs [0012], [0016], [0083]-[0086]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would provide efficient methods and apparatus for providing continuous data protection (CDP) in a data processing system as taught by Zohar et al (Paragraph [0005]).
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time.
Kuemmel; Sascha (US 20180191588 A1) teaches, generating a log of sequences based on the remapped first metadata and the second metadata; receiving second metadata at the background platform at a second receipt time different from the first receipt time; remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time.
(Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149] discloses, send the data/ packets to the endpoint system. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al and Zohar et al by providing remapping the first metadata and the second metadata based on the first receipt time and the second receipt time, as taught by Kuemmel et al (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, packet Report messages may be specifically triggered when a packet is recognized as being lost, which would be detected as a gap in the packet Sequence numbers of a stream of received packets. The packet receiver stores the packet Sequence and time of reception for each packet received, so that this information is available to generate a packet Report when desired as taught by Kuemmel et al (Paragraph [0128]).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the machine-storage medium of claim 16.
Kuemmel et al further teaches, wherein the first send time occurs before the second send time and the second receipt time occurs before the first receipt time and remapping the first metadata and the second metadata comprises resequencing the first metadata and the second metadata such that the second metadata is ahead of the first metadata in the log of sequences based on the second receipt time occurring before the first receipt time (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0145]-[0149] discloses, send the data/ packets to the endpoint system. For example sending packets with D1, D2, D3 are all received by the system. When packets D4 and D5 are sent D5 is received before D4 and arranging the packets in the received sequence based on the receipt time, which is D1, D2, D3, D5, D4).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the machine-storage medium of claim 16.
Zohar et al further teaches, wherein in response to receiving the request for the one of the first locations or the second locations, the operations further comprise: retrieving, at the background platform, one of the first content or the second content from the object storage service; and providing, at the background platform, the one of the first content or the second content to a requestor of one of the first content or the second content (Paragraph [0083]-[0086] discloses, receiving a request to read data, the respective data is accessed based on the latest metadata/ timestamp and or/ accessing the previous data by accessing the link pointing to from the latest data to the previous data).
10. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale; Brandon (US 20200028756 A1) in view of Zohar; Ofir (US 20070033370 A1), Kuemmel; Sascha (US 20180191588 A1) and in further view of NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Hale et al further teaches, wherein the background platform is logically separate from the distributed platform and the object storage service (Paragraph [0042] discloses, the distributed streaming platform is separate from the storage service).
Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al fails to explicitly teach, the background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time.
NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1) teaches, the background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time (Paragraph [0036] discloses, based on the objects being modified/ updated, the application platform may scan the objects, catalog them into groups and update objects based on the changed metadata/ ID as taught in [0042]. Also see [0030]-[0032])),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al by providing he background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time, as taught by NEELAKANTA et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would eliminate the stale data and provides accuracy in accessing data.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the system of claim 1.
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane comprises a storage system having a key value store, keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise at least one of the first metadata and the second metadata, values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored.
NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1) teaches, wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane comprises a storage system having a key value store, keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise at least one of the first metadata and the second metadata, values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored (Paragraph [0042] discloses, metadata includes metadata plane storage system having key value store).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al by providing wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane comprises a storage system having a key value store, keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise the data, values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored as taught by NEELAKANTA et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would eliminate the stale data and provides accuracy in accessing data based on the key values store.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the method of claim 10.
Hale et al further teaches, wherein the background platform is logically separate from the distributed platform and the object storage service (Paragraph [0042] discloses, the distributed streaming platform is separate from the storage service).
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, the background platform configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time.
NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1) teaches, the background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time (Paragraph [0036] discloses, based on the objects being modified/ updated, the application platform may scan the objects, catalog them into groups and update objects based on the changed metadata/ ID as taught in [0042]. Also see [0030]-[0032])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al by providing he background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time, as taught by NEELAKANTA et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would eliminate the stale data and provides accuracy in accessing data.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the method of claim 10.
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane is a storage system having a key value store where keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise at least one of the first metadata and the second metadata and values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored.
NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1) teaches, wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane is a storage system having a key value store where keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise at least one of the first metadata and the second metadata and values and values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored (Paragraph [0042] discloses, metadata includes metadata plane storage system having key value store).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al by providing wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane comprises a storage system having a key value store, keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise the data, values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored as taught by NEELAKANTA et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would eliminate the stale data and provides accuracy in accessing data based on the key values store.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the machine-storage medium of claim 16.
Hale et al further teaches, wherein the background platform is logically separate from the distributed platform and the object storage service (Paragraph [0042] discloses, the distributed streaming platform is separate from the storage service).
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, the background platform configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time.
NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1) teaches, the background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time (Paragraph [0036] discloses, based on the objects being modified/ updated, the application platform may scan the objects, catalog them into groups and update objects based on the changed metadata/ ID as taught in [0042]. Also see [0030]-[0032])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al by providing he background platform being configured to scan, catalog, and periodically update the first or the second metadata in real time, as taught by NEELAKANTA et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would eliminate the stale data and provides accuracy in accessing data.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al teach, the machine-storage medium of claim 16.
Hale et al and Zohar et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein: the background platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane is a storage system having a key value store where keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise at least one of the first metadata and the second metadata and values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored.
NEELAKANTA; NIRANJAN PATRE (US 20170220267 A1) teaches, wherein: the background platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane is a storage system having a key value store where keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise at least one of the first metadata and the second metadata and values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored (Paragraph [0042] discloses, metadata includes metadata plane storage system having key value store).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hale et al, Zohar et al and Kuemmel et al by providing wherein: the distributed platform comprises a metadata plane; and the metadata plane comprises a storage system having a key value store, keys associated with the key value store corresponding to data streams that comprise the data, values associated with the key value store indicating where on the object storage service the data streams corresponding to the keys are stored as taught by NEELAKANTA et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would eliminate the stale data and provides accuracy in accessing data based on the key values store.
Closest Prior Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Beedgen; Christian Friedrich (US 20210406317 A1) teaches, In some embodiments, the metadata catalog stores the names and the associated key-value pairs for each metric. In some embodiments, the metadata catalog also stores, for each metric, a pointer to the table where the raw, actual data for that metric is stored. In other embodiments, rather than storing a pointer, a pointer or reference is computed from the metric name and key-value pairs. Relevant metrics and time series may then be identified and retrieved using the metric name and key value metadata (Paragraph [0160].
12. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented in this office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights