DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings have been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The title, abstract, and specification have been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 10, 11, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,604,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application would be anticipated by the claim limitations of the ‘706 patent.
Present Application
US 11,604,706
1. A computer-implemented method for managing backup data across multiple cloud storage tiers, comprising:
receiving, through a user interface, user-defined selections identifying a first cloud storage tier characterized by low latency and high accessibility, and a second cloud storage tier characterized by higher latency and lower storage cost;
executing a backup operation generating backup payload data, metadata, and indexing data;
automatically categorizing the backup payload data, metadata, and indexing data;
automatically storing the backup metadata and indexing data on the first cloud storage tier;
automatically storing the backup payload data on the second cloud storage tier;
and
accessing the indexing data stored in the first cloud storage tier to identify backup payload data stored in the second cloud storage tier during a data restoration operation.
1. A computer-implemented method to back up and recall backed-up data using different cloud storage tiers, the computer implemented method comprising: (…)
wherein an attribute of the first cloud storage tier is that the first cloud storage tier provides faster access to data stored therein than the second cloud storage tier; …
5. …another attribute of the first cloud storage tier is that the first cloud storage tier is more expensive than per unit of data storage than the second cloud storage tier.
1. … receiving a first selection of the first cloud storage tier and a second selection of the second cloud storage tier;
…wherein the storage policy indicates that, in a backup operation of the primary dataset, payload data of the primary dataset is to be backed up into the second cloud storage tier in the cloud storage environment, and further indicates that metadata collected in the backup operation of the primary dataset and a backup index associated with the storage policy, are to be stored in the first cloud storage tier in the cloud storage environment; …
wherein the browsing information is obtained by accessing at least one of: the browsing index…
10. … responsive to a user-supplied request to restore at least part of the primary dataset from the backup storage in the cloud storage environment, initiating a restore operation…
Claim 11 is directed to a computer-implemented system that performs the method of claim 1 and would thus be rejected as obvious over the cited claims as well as the corresponding system claims 11 and 14 of the ‘706 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest storing the backup metadata and indexing data on the first cloud storage tier and accessing the indexing data stored in the first cloud storage tier to identify backup payload data stored in the second cloud storage tier during a data restoration operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D TSUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)272-3978. 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.
/DANIEL D TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights