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 action is responsive to communications regarding the applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on 08/03/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200301880 to George et al. (hereinafter “George”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080183973 to Aguilera et al. (hereinafter “Aguilera”).
As to claim 1, George teaches a computer-implemented method comprising (computer-implemented method in a system comprise processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, Fig. 1, 9, par. 0004-0010, 0098-0111):
receiving, at a computing system, a file system command that targets a clone directory located within a special directory of a file system (Fig. 6, 7, par. 0061-0063, selection for creating a snapshot, i.e. “where file management client 2 702 can initiate creating a snapshot of directory volume 120”); and
in response to the file system command:
creating a snapshot of a target file system (Fig. 6, 7, par. 0061-0063, creating a snapshot, i.e. “where file management client 2 702 can initiate creating a snapshot of directory volume 120”);
cloning the snapshot into the clone directory to generate a live, read- write file system instance (Fig. 6-9, par. 0061-0063, i.e. “based on receiving the request to create the snapshot, multitier snapshotting component 150 can create a snapshot directory volume 160 that can reference directory volume 120 for file information, and can have separate metadata to track changes based on a copy-on-write mechanism, as described. For example, a volsnap service can be used for copy-on-write on the directory volume, where the volsnap service can recognize files being accessed and can make backup copies of the files based on access requests. In this example, multitier snapshotting component 150 can create metadata 708 for the snapshot directory volume 160 that includes the metadata of directory volume 120 (e.g., as snapshot directory metadata 162), pointing to the same file information. This can represent a snapshot of the directory volume 120 before further changes are made to the directory volume 120”);
mapping an address of the target file system into the clone directory (Fig. 6-9, par. 0061-0063, i.e. “based on receiving the request to create the snapshot, multitier snapshotting component 150 can create a snapshot directory volume 160 that can reference directory volume 120 for file information, and can have separate metadata to track changes based on a copy-on-write mechanism, as described. For example, a volsnap service can be used for copy-on-write on the directory volume, where the volsnap service can recognize files being accessed and can make backup copies of the files based on access requests. In this example, multitier snapshotting component 150 can create metadata 708 for the snapshot directory volume 160 that includes the metadata of directory volume 120 (e.g., as snapshot directory metadata 162), pointing to the same file information. This can represent a snapshot of the directory volume 120 before further changes are made to the directory volume 120”); and
linking the clone directory to a head node, wherein the head node presents the clone directory as visible in the head node to clients through a unified mount point (Fig. 4, 6-9, par. 0061-0069, i.e. “based on receiving the request to create the snapshot, multitier snapshotting component 150 can create a snapshot directory volume 160 that can reference directory volume 120 for file information, and can have separate metadata to track changes based on a copy-on-write mechanism, as described. For example, a volsnap service can be used for copy-on-write on the directory volume, where the volsnap service can recognize files being accessed and can make backup copies of the files based on access requests. In this example, multitier snapshotting component 150 can create metadata 708 for the snapshot directory volume 160 that includes the metadata of directory volume 120 (e.g., as snapshot directory metadata 162), pointing to the same file information. This can represent a snapshot of the directory volume 120 before further changes are made to the directory volume 120”).
George does not explicitly teach wherein the live, read-write file system is a duplicate writable file system that provides instant access to a writable copy of the file system as claimed.
Aguilera teaches wherein the live, read-write file system is a duplicate writable file system that provides instant access to a writable copy of the file system (Aguiler, par. 0015-0017, snapshots that are writable, i.e .” [0015] Embodiments in accordance with the present invention are directed to apparatus, systems, and methods for providing snapshots (i.e., copies at a given point-in-time) or clones (i.e., snapshots that are writable) in a distributed storage system that employs quorum-based replication. As will be explained in more detail below, in one exemplary embodiment, a distributed block storage system provides point-in-time branching… Cloning a volume results in a new writable volume whose initial contents are identical to the source volume. While the data in a clone can change, the snapshot retains its original data. Further, it is possible to clone a snapshot multiple times.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the teaching of George with the teaching of Aguilera because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Aguilera would allow George to facilitate “…the snapshots and clones accurately reflect the data …”. (Aguilera, par. 0001-0004)
As to claim 2, combination of George and Aguilera teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising mirroring security privileges and administrative access from the target file system to the clone directory (Fig. 6-9, par. 0052, 0061-0069, i.e. “Further, the file metadata 132 may include one or more attributes, a file security descriptor, a file size, an allocation size, and shard information. For each shard 142 in the file layout, the file management client 104 may open the shard 142 on the shard volume 140 and perform read/write operations…multitier snapshotting component 150 can create metadata 708 for the snapshot directory volume 160 that includes the metadata of directory volume 120 (e.g., as snapshot directory metadata 162), pointing to the same file information. This can represent a snapshot of the directory volume 120 before further changes are made to the directory volume 120”).
As to claim 3, combination of George and Aguilera teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein files in the clone directory are read-write files (Fig. 11, par. 0034-0035, 0072, modifying data in snapshot directory volume 160).
As to claim 4, combination of George and Aguilera teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a selection of the snapshot of the target file system that is stored in a snapshot directory (par. 0077-0082, selection of a snapshot for deletion).
As to claim 5, combination of George and Aguilera teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the snapshot is a point-in-time reference of the target file system (par. 0034-0035, point-in-time reference such as “snapshot versions of files modified since the snapshot”).
As to claim 6, combination of George and Aguilera teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising copying file system properties of the target file system, wherein the file system properties include one or more of compartment, tags, display name, keys, and mount target export information (Fig. 3-4, par. 0049-0053, one or more of compartment such as Directory Volume, File Volume and Shard Volume).
As to claim 7, combination of George and Aguilera teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising copying linking metadata from the target file system to the clone directory (Fig. 6-9, par. 0052, 0061-0069, i.e. “Further, the file metadata 132 may include one or more attributes, a file security descriptor, a file size, an allocation size, and shard information. For each shard 142 in the file layout, the file management client 104 may open the shard 142 on the shard volume 140 and perform read/write operations…multitier snapshotting component 150 can create metadata 708 for the snapshot directory volume 160 that includes the metadata of directory volume 120 (e.g., as snapshot directory metadata 162), pointing to the same file information. This can represent a snapshot of the directory volume 120 before further changes are made to the directory volume 120”).
Regarding claims 8-14, are essentially the same as claims 1-7 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a computer-program product rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Regarding claims 15-20, is essentially the same as claims 1-6 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANHTAI V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights