DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 19/223277 filed on May 30, 2025 in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 6-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 102. Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 103. Claims 5, 12 and 20 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 14, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on May 30, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 and 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Chang (US Patent Application 2022/0091743).
Claim 1, Change teaches a method comprising: maintaining, by a storage system, a bucket containing a plurality of objects, wherein each of the plurality of objects has one or more object versions (View Chang ¶ 217; an object-based storage system that stores objects with multiple versions in buckets and produces bucket versioning snapshots); restoring, by the storage system, a previous version of the one or more object versions for one or more objects of the plurality of objects based on a snapshot of the bucket by performing a background restore process (View Chang ¶ 217-219; bucket versioning snapshots include data protection & recovery); and during the background restore process, making restoration of the previous version of the one or more object versions for the one or more objects appear instant to a client (View Chang ¶ 220, 222, 223, 246; storage administrators may use BVS Restore to rewind the state of the entire bucket back to a previous good recovery point) by performing one or more of: redirecting object accesses by the client associated with a read-only operation to content of the snapshot (View Chang ¶ 218, 245; bucket versioning snapshots stable read-only data sets); and prior to responding to a request from the client involving a modifying operation relating to a particular object of the one or more objects, restoring the previous version of the particular object on-demand (View Chang ¶ 169, 246, 316; BVS Restore to rewind the state of the entire bucket back to a previous good recovery point).
Claim 6 is the medium corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 13 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 6. Chang further teaches the previous version of the one or more object versions for the one or more objects is restored by creating a new current version for each object of the one or more objects on top of the one or more object versions for the object by cloning the previous version of the object (View Chang ¶ 247, 248, 267; a bucket named my-bucket has bucket versioning snapshots named BVS1, BVS2 and BVS3. One of the bucket versioning snapshots is cloned, as a cloned bucket versioning snapshot named BVS2 Clone in a cloned bucket).
Claim 14 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 6. Chang further teaches the previous version of the one or more object versions for the one or more objects is restored by promoting the previous version for each object of the one or more objects to be a current version of the object (View Chang ¶ 220, 222, 223, 246; storage administrators may use BVS Restore to rewind the state of the entire bucket back to a previous good recovery point).
Claim 15 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
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, 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) 2, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent Application 2022/0091743) in view of Kumar (US Patent 2021/0096958) and further in view of Avisror (US Patent Application 2019/0294528).
Claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chang does not explicitly teach maintaining, by the storage system, a prior version table for each object of the plurality of objects containing information relating to those of the one or more object versions of the object that represent prior versions of the object; and iterating over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects.
However, Kumar teaches maintaining, by the storage system, a prior version table for each object of the plurality of objects containing information relating to those of the one or more object versions of the object that represent prior versions of the object (View Kumar ¶ 46; only the blocks that have changed since the first snapshot need be copied to the object storage servers, and the table of contents or manifest file can be updated to point to the latest versions of each data block (or a second table of contents or manifest file can be created, enabling the initial table of contents or manifest file to remain as a record of a prior version of the volume)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Chang with maintaining, by the storage system, a prior version table for each object of the plurality of objects containing information relating to those of the one or more object versions of the object that represent prior versions of the object since it is known in the art that a prior object version table can be stored (View Kumar ¶ 46). Such modification would have allowed an object version to be rolled back.
Chang and Kumar do not explicitly teach iterating over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects.
However, Avisror teaches iterating over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects (View Avisror ¶ 45; analysis engine may be configured to perform an automated historical analysis on stored historical data for one or more previous versions of the build combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with iterating over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects since it is known in the art that prior object versions can be evaluated (View Avisror ¶ 45). Such modification would have allowed an object version to be rolled back to a prior version.
Claim 9 is the medium corresponding to the method of Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 17, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 16. Chang and Kumar do not explicitly teach to iterate over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects.
However, Avisror teaches to iterate over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects (View Avisror ¶ 45; analysis engine may be configured to perform an automated historical analysis on stored historical data for one or more previous versions of the build combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with to iterate over each object version of the one or more object versions maintained in the prior version table for each of the one or more objects since it is known in the art that prior object versions can be evaluated (View Avisror ¶ 45). Such modification would have allowed an object version to be rolled back to a prior version.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent Application 2022/0091743) in view of Kumar (US Patent 2021/0096958) in view of Avisror (US Patent Application 2019/0294528) and further in view of Butler (US Patent Application 2010/0030802).
Claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 2. Chang, Kumar and Avisror do not explicitly teach during the iterating, removing the object version based on the object version having a time indicator after a snapshot time indicator associated with the snapshot.
However, Butler teaches during the iterating, removing the object version based on the object version having a time indicator after a snapshot time indicator associated with the snapshot (View Butler ¶ 45; after closing the snapshot all obsolete versions are deleted unless the object is still in another open snapshot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with during the iterating, removing the object version based on the object version having a time indicator after a snapshot time indicator associated with the snapshot since it is known in the art that an object version can be deleted (View Butler ¶ 45). Such modification would have allowed an object version to be deleted after a shapshot.
Claim 10 is the medium corresponding to the method of Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim 18 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent Application 2022/0091743) in view of Kumar (US Patent 2021/0096958) in view of Avisror (US Patent Application 2019/0294528) and further in view of Gunasekaran (US Patent Application 2024/0211434).
Claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 2. Chang, Kumar and Avisror do not explicitly teach the snapshot is represented by a snapshot entry within a snapshot metafile, wherein the snapshot entry includes a snapshot identifier (ID) and a snapshot time indicator.
However, Gunasekaran teaches the snapshot is represented by a snapshot entry within a snapshot metafile (View Gunasekaran ¶ 134; managing the snapshot lineages stored in the cloud infrastructure (e.g., viewing the snapshot lineages and associated information or metadata), wherein the snapshot entry includes a snapshot identifier (ID) and a snapshot time indicator (View Gunasekaran ¶ 166; snapshot_id” with a type of long comprising a snapshot set ID tagged on all snapshots in the snapshot set; optional “datetime” with a type of long comprising a timestamp (e.g., a UNIX timestamp) representation for the snapshots, which should be the same for all snapshots in the snapshot set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with teaches the snapshot is represented by a snapshot entry within a snapshot metafile, wherein the snapshot entry includes a snapshot identifier (ID) and a snapshot time indicator since it is known in the art that a snapshot ID can be stored (View Gunasekaran ¶ 166). Such modification would have allowed a snapshot of an object version to be stored.
Claim 11 is the medium corresponding to the method of Claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claim 19 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent Application 2022/0091743) in view of Kumar (US Patent 2021/0096958).
Claim 16, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 13. Chang does not explicitly teach the storage system to maintain a prior version table for each object of the plurality of objects containing information relating to those of the one or more object versions of the object that represent prior versions of the object.
However, Kumar teaches the storage system to maintain a prior version table for each object of the plurality of objects containing information relating to those of the one or more object versions of the object that represent prior versions of the object (View Kumar ¶ 46; only the blocks that have changed since the first snapshot need be copied to the object storage servers, and the table of contents or manifest file can be updated to point to the latest versions of each data block (or a second table of contents or manifest file can be created, enabling the initial table of contents or manifest file to remain as a record of a prior version of the volume)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Chang with the storage system to maintain a prior version table for each object of the plurality of objects containing information relating to those of the one or more object versions of the object that represent prior versions of the object since it is known in the art that a prior object version table can be stored (View Kumar ¶ 46). Such modification would have allowed an object version to be rolled back.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Ten-Pow et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0261749); teaches objects in the same bucket that have the same key but different version-ids may be referred to as versions of one another, object versions of the key, or simply versions of the key. In some embodiments, the techniques described herein may enable multiple versions of an object to be stored in the same bucket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights