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
The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Lines 1, 4, 7 and 10 recite Techniques described include” and “The techniques further include” are phrases that can be implied and not clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 3, recites the limitation "the storage volume". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similar problem exists in claims 16 and 20.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 2 recites “comparing the second storage volume sequence number to the storage volume identifier”, however, there is no description for the relationship between “the second storage volume sequence number” and “the storage volume identifier”. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Similar problem exists in claim 17.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Claim 3 recites “comparing the first storage volume sequence number to the second storage volume sequence number”, without describing any processing step associated with the limitation. Therefore it is indefinite.
Similar problem exists in claim 18.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,346,225.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions are obvious variants. Claim 1 of the Instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Patent 12,346,225 as shown in comparison table below.
Instant Application
Patent 12,346,225
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a request to create a restored storage volume using a storage volume identifier for the storage volume and a first storage volume sequence number corresponding to the storage volume identifier and associated with a first snapshot;
receiving, by the computing system, the request to create the restored storage volume using the storage volume identifier for the storage volume, and a second storage volume sequence number corresponding to the storage volume identifier and associated with a second snapshot;
determining, by the computing system, whether the second storage volume sequence number is indicative of the storage volume having been altered after the first snapshot was generated; and
responsive to the determination by the computing system, creating the restored storage volume using at least one of: the first snapshot or the second snapshot.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a request to create a restored block volume using a first manifest, the first manifest comprising: (i) a block identifier for a block and (ii) a first block sequence number corresponding to the block identifier and associated with a first snapshot, and (iii) a manifest identifier;
receiving, by the computing system, the request to create the restored block volume using a second manifest, the second manifest comprising: (i) the block identifier for the block, (ii) a second block sequence number corresponding to the block identifier and associated with a second snapshot;
determining, by the computing system, whether the second block sequence number is indicative of the block having been altered after the first manifest was generated; and
responsive to the determination by the computing system, creating the restored block volume.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the additional elements “the table has been partitioned into a plurality of column chunks by independently partitioning each column of the table into two or more column chunks based on a predetermined partitioning policy, the predetermined partitioning policy comprising information related to the number of column chunks into which the each column of the table should be partitioned;” of claims 1 of Patent 12,346,225 to arrive at the claim 1 of the Instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadowcroft et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0308762) in view of Hohl et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0060699).
Referring to claim 1, Meadowcroft et al. teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a request to create a restored storage volume using a storage volume identifier for the storage volume (The user request instructs in-place recovery system 334 to restore a particular virtual machine in a primary storage platform to a version corresponding to a first point in time, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 76, wherein the a first point in time is interpreted as a storage volume identifier) and a first storage volume sequence number corresponding to the storage volume identifier and associated with a first snapshot (At operation 504, the in-place recovery system 334 identifies a first snapshot of the virtual machine based on the user request. The identification may be based on a sequence number assigned to the first snapshot in the request, … , the sequence number refers to the first snapshot being captured at the first point in time, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 77);
receiving, by the computing system, the request to create the restored storage volume using the storage volume identifier for the storage volume (The user request instructs in-place recovery system 334 to restore a particular virtual machine in a primary storage platform to a version corresponding to a first point in time, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 76, wherein the a first point in time is interpreted as a storage volume identifier), and a second storage volume sequence number corresponding to the storage volume identifier and associated with a second snapshot (At operation 506, the in-place recovery system 334 generates a second snapshot of the virtual machine at the second point in time. The second point time is subsequent to the first point in time, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78);
determining, by the computing system, whether the second storage volume sequence number is indicative of the storage volume having been altered after the first snapshot was generated (identifies a second data block in the second snapshot that includes modified data derived from, or based on, the data content of a first data block in the first snapshot, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78).
However, Meadowcroft et al. does not explicitly teach
responsive to the determination by the computing system, creating the restored storage volume using at least one of: the first snapshot or the second snapshot.
Hohl et al. teaches
responsive to the determination by the computing system, creating the restored storage volume using at least one of: the first snapshot or the second snapshot (In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, a series of log backups are applied to a previous full backup 302 to create restored database 306, see Hohl et al., Para. 44, using full backup 202 to create an initial version of restored database 206 and then applying log backups 204.1-204.4 to the restored database 206 to bring the restored database 206 to the state of database 104 as of time t=4, see Hohl et al., Para. 39, a log backup is an incremental backup of changes to the database since a previous log backup, see Hohl et al., Para. 53) (The backup data structure 140 identifies a backup by a unique identifier, includes a time stamp of when the backup was created, see Hohl et al., Para. 35).
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 the method of Meadowcroft et al., to have responsive to the determination by the computing system, creating the restored storage volume using at least one of: the first snapshot or the second snapshot, as taught by Hohl et al., to improve data protection (Hohl et al., Para. 5).
As to claim 2, Meadowcroft et al. teaches comparing the second storage volume sequence number to the storage volume identifier (Each file that has been added, deleted, or modified since a previous snapshot was captured may be determined using the metadata ( e.g., by comparing the time at which a file was last modified with a time associated with the previous snapshot), see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 66); and determining whether the second storage volume sequence number was changed after the first snapshot was generated (At operation 508, the in-place recovery system 334 identifies a second data block in the second snapshot that includes modified data derived from, or based on, the data content of a first data block in the first snapshot, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78, each snapshot is identified by a sequence number, as a unique identifier , see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78). As to claim3, Meadowcroft et al. teaches comparing the first storage volume sequence number to the second storage volume sequence number (each snapshot is identified by a sequence number, as a unique identifier, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78. Because “a sequence number, as a unique identifier”, so that “the first storage volume sequence number” is different from “the second storage volume sequence number”). As to claim 4, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches creating the restored storage volume using one of: (i) the first snapshot or (ii) the second snapshot (using full backup 202 to create an initial version of restored database 206 and then applying log backups 204.1-204.4 to the restored database 206 to bring the restored database 206 to the state of database 104 as of time t=4, see Hohl et al., Para. 39). As to claim 5, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches (i) the first snapshot or (ii) the second snapshot further comprises: creating the restored storage volume using one of: (i) a first portion of the first snapshot or (ii) a second portion of the second snapshot (using full backup 202 to create an initial version of restored database 206 and then applying log backups 204.1-204.4 to the restored database 206 to bring the restored database 206 to the state of database 104 as of time t=4, see Hohl et al., Para. 39). As to claim 7, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches determining whether the second storage volume sequence number is greater than the storage volume identifier(log backups subsequent to the creation of the new full backup are associated with the new full backup forming an alternative recovery path. The association can be made using one or more of a backup identifier, a time stamp, a sequence number, see Hohl et al., Para. 26). As to claim 8, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches determining whether the second storage volume sequence number was changed after the first snapshot was generated indicates that the second snapshot associated with the storage volume identifier includes a more recent write operation to the storage volume (allow the server 200 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 35, a second data block in the second snapshot that includes modified data derived from, or based on, the data content of a first data block in the first snapshot, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78). As to claim 9, Meadowcroft et al. teaches the first snapshot is a point-in-time capture of the storage volume (The user request instructs in-place recovery system 334 to restore a particular virtual machine in a primary storage platform to a version corresponding to a first point in time, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 76) and the second storage volume sequence number is at least one of: a number, a character, or a hash value (the sequence number refers to the first snapshot being captured at the first point in time, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 77). As to claim 10, Meadowcroft et al. teaches updating the storage volume, allocating the storage volume, or deallocating the storage volume (allow the server 200 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 35, a second data block in the second snapshot that includes modified data derived from, or based on, the data content of a first data block in the first snapshot, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78). As to claim 11, Meadowcroft et al. teaches reading the storage volume (allow the server 200 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 35) to detect that the storage volume has been altered (identifies a second data block in the second snapshot that includes modified data derived from, or based on, the data content of a first data block in the first snapshot, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78); and generating the second storage volume sequence number based at least in part on the first storage volume sequence number (each snapshot is identified by a sequence number, as a unique identifier, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 78). As to claim 12, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches the first storage volume sequence number is based at least in part on a previously generated storage volume sequence number (a log sequence number (LSN) may be available in each log backup or full backup header. The LSN may be used to determine the order of a log backup in a sequence of log backups, see Hohl et al., Para. 40), and wherein the second snapshot is a remotely stored snapshot (the in-place recovery system 334 may be a software-level component of a storage appliance 300 in a networked computing environment 100, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 51. The server 200, storage device 108, and storage appliance 300 may be in communication with each other via a networking fabric connecting servers, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 23). As to claim 13, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches receiving, by the computing system, a second request for a set of blocks included in the restored storage volume (reads the information for the selected full backup and when available, information for log backups that are associated with the full backup. In one aspect, instead of scanning a file system for appropriate files or file types, or scanning one or more directories or folders for the log backups, the display of FIG. 9 provides a tool for selecting the appropriate log backup, see Hohl et al., Para. 58). As to claim 15, Meadowcroft et al. as modified teaches the first storage volume sequence number corresponds to the second storage volume sequence number in accordance with the first storage volume sequence number and the second storage volume sequence number being associated with a same storage volume identifier that corresponds to a same storage volume (each recovery path including log backups that are associated with a different full backup. For a restore operation or any similar operation such as cloning a database, a user can select a desired full backup. Upon selection of the desired full backup, the management application 106 can determine the recovery path appropriate to the selected full
backup by identifying a sequence of log backups. The database restoration operation can then be performed using the selected full backup and the appropriate log backups, see Hohl et al., Para. 26 and Para. 39). Referring to claim 16, Meadowcroft et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (processor 112, memory 114, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 27) storing a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors of a storage volume restore system, the plurality of instructions cause, when executed by thenar more processors of the storage volume restore system, the one or more processors to perform operations, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claims 4 and 5 rejection.
Referring to claim 20, Meadowcroft et al. teaches a block volume restore system, comprising: one or more data processors; and a computer-readable storage medium (processor 112, memory 114, see Meadowcroft et al., Para. 27) comprising instructions that, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform operations, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadowcroft et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0308762) in view of Hohl et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0060699) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 above, and in further view of Zheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,529).
As to claim 6, Meadowcroft et al. as modified does not explicitly teach creating an empty storage volume.
However, Zheng et al. teaches creating an empty storage volume (generates an empty file for each individual file in the backup image,…, determine the restored data blocks to associate with the direct blocks for the empty files, see Zheng et al., Col. 13, lines 12-18).
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 the method of Meadowcroft et al. as modified, to have creating an empty storage volume, as taught by Zheng et al., to provides the advantages of block-level backup, such as retaining deduplication, while also being compatible with upgraded or modified file system software (Zheng et al., Col. 1, lines 65-67).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadowcroft et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0308762) in view of Hohl et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0060699) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 above, and in further view of Manley et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0182330).
As to claim 14, Meadowcroft et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the second storage volume sequence number is a predetermined value in accordance with the storage volume being deallocated or the storage volume being unallocated.
However, Manley et al. teaches the second storage volume sequence number is a predetermined value in accordance with the storage volume being deallocated or the storage volume being unallocated (It also allows the system to track changes in which a file is deleted and its inode number is reassigned to a newly created file, see Manley et al., Para. 21. The reference teaches an unused reference number can be reused for a new instance).
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 the method of Meadowcroft et al. as modified, to have the second storage volume sequence number is a predetermined value in accordance with the storage volume being deallocated or the storage volume being unallocated, as taught by Manley et al., to improve reliability and facilitate disaster recovery in the event of a failure of a filer (Manley et al., Para. 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Charles Rones can be reached at 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 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights