Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 recites “the snapshot” and “the identifier.” Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, recites two snapshots (i.e. a generated snapshot and a second snapshot); and two identifiers (i.e. assigned identifier and second identifier). One skilled in the art could not determine the scope of the claim because the antecedent bases of “the snapshot” and “the identifier” are not clear. That is, it is unclear if “the snapshot” refers to “generated snapshot” or “second snapshot” and/or if “the identifier” refers to “the assigned identifier” or “the second identifier.” This renders the claims vague and indefinite. Claim 3 inherits this deficiency.
Claims 9-10 and claim 16 are rejected for the same reason above.
Claims 8 and claim 15 each recite “(unique) (provID).” One skilled in the art could not determine the scope of these claims because it is unclear whether these parentheticals (1) have any patentable weight or (2) are typographical errors. This renders the claim vague and indefinite. For the purposes of this action, Examiner assumes these terms have no patentable weight.
Examiner recommends deleting these parentheticals to overcome this rejection.
The dependent claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected because they inherit the deficiency of their respective parent claims.
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, 8-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a snapshot of a source file system in a source region;
assigning, by the computing system, an identifier to the generated snapshot;
receiving, by the computing system, a request to start a cross-region replication between the source file system and a target file system;
comparing, by the computing system, the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot of the source file system to a second identifier of a second snapshot corresponding to a source file system;
determining, by the computing system, whether the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot matches the second identifier of the second snapshot
and performing the cross-region replication between the source file system and the target file system using a base snapshot
Examiner finds that the emphasized portions of claim 1 above recite an abstract idea—namely, mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III):
Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
When read as a whole, the recited limitations are directed to using mental steps to observe, evaluate, and make judgements about electronic data.
Taking each element individually, Examiner provides the following analysis:
Bolded Abstract Idea Claim Elements
Examiner analysis of bolded abstract idea elements considered individually
assigning, by the computing system, an identifier to the generated snapshot;
This element merely requires an evaluation and/or judgment as to what identifier to assign to the snapshot.
comparing, by the computing system, the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot of the source file system to a second identifier of a second snapshot corresponding to a source file system;
This element merely requires evaluation of each of the respective identifiers.
determining, by the computing system, whether the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot matches the second identifier of the second snapshot
This element merely requires evaluation of each of the respective identifiers and an evaluation/judgment as to whether they match or not.
Turning to the additional elements and whether they integrate the exception, Examiner provides the following analysis:
Italicized Additional elements
Examiner analysis of italicized additional elements and whether they integrate the exception and whether they recite an inventive concept.
Relevant MPEP sections
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a snapshot of a source file system in a source region;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. Data is selected in that a file system is selected and the manipulation is the generation of the snapshot.
Examiner finds generating, by a computing system, a snapshot of a source file system in a source region was a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (WURC) at the time of filing. See Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 3-4 and US 20130110778 A1 abstract, US 10761941 B1, abstract. Jain (cited below) abstract.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
assigning, by the computing system, an identifier to the generated snapshot;
This element recites mere instructions to apply the exception and generally links the abstract idea to a computing environment. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(f),(h)
receiving, by the computing system, a request to start a cross-region replication between the source file system and a target file system;
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering.
This element recites a WURC computer function (receiving and transmitting data over a network) and thus does not recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
comparing, by the computing system, the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot of the source file system to a second identifier of a second snapshot corresponding to a source file system;
This element recites mere instructions to apply the exception and generally links the abstract idea to a computing environment. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(f),(h)
determining, by the computing system, whether the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot matches the second identifier of the second snapshot
This element recites mere instructions to apply the exception and generally links the abstract idea to a computing environment. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept.
2106.05(f),(h)
and performing the cross-region replication between the source file system and the target file system using a base snapshot.
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. Data is selected in file systems are selected and the manipulation is the cross-region replication.
Examiner finds “performing the cross-region replication between the source file system and the target file system using a base snapshot” was a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (WURC) at the time of filing. See Snapshot Tool For Amazon RDS, p.2 top of page paragraph; Malik, p. 3 steps 1-8 1st paragraph.
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)
The additional elements above “[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice).
As such, when the claim elements are considered as a whole and individually, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 and 15 are also rejected for the reasons given above for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons indicated below.
Claim
Bold = abstract idea elements
Italics = additional elements
Analysis
MPEP
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a unique identifier configured to identify the snapshot.
This element merely requires evaluation and/or judgment by a human. As such, it is direct to mental processes.
2106.04(a)(2) (III)
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the snapshot comprises at least one of a system snapshot or a user snapshot.
This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. Data is selected in a file system is selected and the manipulation is the generation of the snapshot.
Examiner finds generating, by a computing system, a snapshot of a source file system in a source region was a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (WURC) at the time of filing. See US 20210004353 abstract,
Malik (cited below) p. 2 3rd paragraph
US-10761941-B1 abstract
2106.05(g)
2106.05(d)(II)
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 2-3.
The additional elements above “[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice).
As such, when the claim elements are considered as a whole and individually, claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16 recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 1-4, 8-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain US 20210004353 A1 in view of Malik, Cross-Region Automatic Disaster Recovery on Amazon RDS for Oracle Database Using DB Snapshots and AWS Lambda, 2019.
With respect to claim 1, Jain teaches “generating, by the computing system, a snapshot of a source file system in a source region” in paras. 20-21 (“The data management application creates a snapshot by copying data from a data source, which may be a primary or secondary storage (e.g., backup servers), to a storage destination”; Examiner finds “storage destination” teaches “snapshot of a source file system in a source region”); paras. 24-25 (snapshots are generated for data collections; data collections include file system instances);
“assigning, by the computing system, an identifier to the generated snapshot” in para. 26:
The appliance snapshot manager 109 arranges snapshot metadata and snapshot data received from the protocol stack 103. The appliance snapshot manager 109 arranges the snapshot metadata into an appropriate one of the key-value stores 107 maintained by the appliance snapshot manager 109. In this example illustration, separate key-value stores are maintained by defined data collection. Examples of the snapshot metadata include inode attributes, directory information, and location information of data blocks within snapshot data files. The appliance snapshot manager 109 maintains snapshot data files 117 by snapshot and by defined data collection. The appliance snapshot manager 109 can arrange the snapshot data files by deriving a file naming scheme for each snapshot data file that is based on locally generated snapshot identifiers.
para. 28; para. 35 (“ . . . assigns a local identifier for the snapshot. . .”);
“receiving, by the computing system, a request to start a . . . replication between the source file system and a target file system” in para. 46 (“At block 401, a snapshot manager detects a restore request that specifies a data collection and a snapshot. . .”; Examiner finds restore request is suggests replication request between source and target data collection—see para. 25);
“comparing, by the computing system, the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot of the source file system to a second identifier of a second snapshot corresponding to a source file system” in
[0050] At block 409, the snapshot manager determines whether the specified snapshot is a baseline snapshot. The snapshot manager can compare the local identified of the specified snapshot with the local identifier of the baseline snapshot determined at block 405. If the specified snapshot is a baseline snapshot, then control flows to block 411. Otherwise, control flows to block 415.
23. The method of claim 21, further comprising determining, by the computing device, when the snapshot is the baseline snapshot based on a comparison of the local snapshot identifier with another local snapshot identifier corresponding to the baseline snapshot in a data structure associated with the data collection and storing parent-child relationships for one or more snapshots for the data collection
(second snapshot is “specified snapshot”);
“determining, by the computing system, whether the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot matches the second identifier of the second snapshot” in
[0050] At block 409, the snapshot manager determines whether the specified snapshot is a baseline snapshot. The snapshot manager can compare the local identified of the specified snapshot with the local identifier of the baseline snapshot determined at block 405. If the specified snapshot is a baseline snapshot, then control flows to block 411. Otherwise, control flows to block 415.
23. The method of claim 21, further comprising determining, by the computing device, when the snapshot is the baseline snapshot based on a comparison of the local snapshot identifier with another local snapshot identifier corresponding to the baseline snapshot in a data structure associated with the data collection and storing parent-child relationships for one or more snapshots for the data collection
(Examiner finds that Fig. 4 step 409 strongly suggests that the identifiers will match to determine the baseline snapshot);
“and performing the . . . replication between the source file system and the target file system using a base snapshot” in Fig. step 409, 411-413
[0050] At block 409, the snapshot manager determines whether the specified snapshot is a baseline snapshot. The snapshot manager can compare the local identified of the specified snapshot with the local identifier of the baseline snapshot determined at block 405. If the specified snapshot is a baseline snapshot, then control flows to block 411. Otherwise, control flows to block 415.
[0060] At block 413, the snapshot manager communicates the data buffer and information from the data map records to the restore target. The snapshot manager can communicate information about the inode number, source file offset, and data block length.
It appears Jain fails to explicitly teach a cross-region replication.
However, Malik teaches a cross-region replication on
p. 2 3rd paragraph
In this post, we describe how to automate the cross-region DR process for Amazon RDS for Oracle Database using the backup and restore DR method. This strategy uses the Amazon EBS snapshot mechanism (both Amazon RDS system-generated automated and manual snapshots). It also uses a small set of AWS tools, such as Amazon RDS events, Amazon SNS topics, and AWS Lambda functions. The final state is an automated architecture that does the following:
p. 6, Step 3b; (SOURCE_REGION is source region (Region 1)); source code teaches request to start cross-region replication between us-west-1 and us-east-1).
Malik and Jain are analogous art because they from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the replications in Jain to include “cross-domain replications” as taught by Malik.
The motivation would have been to quickly and cost-effectively recover from disasters where the disasters are in different geographic regions. See Malik p. 1 first three paragraphs.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Jain teaches “2. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a unique identifier configured to identify the snapshot” in para. 28 and para. 29 (“. . . local snapshot identifiers. . .”) (Examiner finds “1” and “2” are unique; see also para. 30).
With respect to claim 3, Jain teaches “3. The method of claim 2, wherein the snapshot comprises at least one of a system snapshot or a user snapshot” in the abstract (snapshot is at least a system snapshot). Jain also teaches this element on p. 2 3rd paragraph (“. . .both Amazon RDS system-generated automated and manual snapshots. . .”) ; Examiner finds Malik teaches the snapshots are user or system snapshots).
With respect to claim 4, Jain teaches “4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the assigned identifier of the generated snapshot does not match the second identifier of the second snapshot” in Fig. 4 step 409, 415 and para. 50;
“utilizing a latest snapshot of the source file system as the base snapshot for the . . .replication” and para. 56 Fig. 4 step 425 (snapshot include current snapshot back to baseline snapshot; this is latest snapshot). Cross region replication taught by Malik. See combination and motivation in claim 1 above.
Claims 9-11 and 16-17 are rejected for the reasons given above for claims 2-4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
If the 112 rejections are overcome, then claims 12-14 and 18-20 would be also be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III whose telephone number is (571)270-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 10a-6:30pm EST M-F.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159