DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority: 09/28/2023
Assignee: Commvault
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,297. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other from the reference claims for the reasons set forth below.
19/227,367(Instant)
1. A computer-implemented method for restoring a computing resource associated with a virtual private cloud (VPC), the method comprising: receiving a request to restore the computing resource from a backup copy stored in a secondary storage device; retrieving network and security configurations of the VPC associated with the computing resource from the secondary storage device, wherein retrieving the network and security configurations comprises retrieving configurations captured using application programming interface (API) requests; submitting the retrieved network and security configurations to a host environment to recreate the VPC, wherein restoring the computing resource further comprises confirming existence of the VPC before recreating it from the retrieved network and security configurations, and converting configurations from a stored backup format to a format supported by the host environment; and restoring the computing resource to the recreated VPC.
12,353,297(Reference)
8 & 10
Analysis
Reference claim 10 (including claim 8) receives a restore request, restores the VM and API-derived VPC configuration from secondary storage, determines that the VPC is unavailable, submits the configuration to create a VPC, and restores the VM. Pending claim 1 recasts the VM as a computing resource and expressly states the prerequisite existence-status check and destination-format conversion. A VM is within “computing resource”; the availability determination is the claimed status check; and conversion is the predictable step when stored configuration is in backup/compressed format or the destination host uses a different format. Reference spec. ¶¶ 0235, 0241–0247.
19/227,367(Instant)
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying missing network entities within an existing VPC by comparing stored VPC configurations with current VPC configurations.
12,353,297(Reference)
8
Analysis
Reference claim 8 determines that a VPC network entity is no longer available. Comparing the stored point-in-time configuration with the current VPC configuration is a predictable method for making that determination and is an embodiment supporting the claimed determination
19/227,367(Instant)
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising recreating the missing network entities within the existing VPC using the stored VPC configurations.
12,353,297(Reference)
8
Analysis
Reference claim 8 expressly uses stored VPC configuration information to request that the host recreate the unavailable network entity. Pending claim 3 states the same result.
19/227,367(Instant)
4. The method of claim 3, wherein recreating the missing network entities comprises recreating subnets, network access control lists (ACLs), and routing tables.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 7, 8, 14
Analysis
The reference claims cover network/security configuration sufficient to recreate the VPC and expressly identify subnets. Selecting subnets, ACLs, and routing tables as the recreated entities merely enumerates standard components of the claimed VPC topology.
19/227,367(Instant)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing resource comprises a virtual machine (VM), a file system server, or a database server.
12,353,297(Reference)
8, 10
Analysis
The “virtual machine” alternative directly overlaps the reference method claims. File-system and database servers are analogous protected computing resources expressly described within the claimed backup/restoration architecture.
19/227,367(Instant)
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieved network and security configurations include subnet definitions, security groups, ACLs, and routing tables.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 7, 8, 14
Analysis
The reference claims require network and security configuration sufficient to recreate the VPC and identify subnet embodiments. Listing subnet definitions, security groups, ACLs, and routing tables narrows the generic configuration to ordinary constituent categories without changing function.
19/227,367(Instant)
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing retrieved VPC configurations in a data management database.
12,353,297(Reference)
8
Analysis
Reference claim 8 stores and retrieves VPC configuration through secondary storage. Further processing selected configuration data into a management database is a routine indexing/management implementation and an expressly described embodiment.
19/227,367(Instant)
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the backup copy is one of a full backup copy, an incremental backup copy, or a snapshot.
12,353,297(Reference)
8, 10
Analysis
The reference claims recite a backup copy. Selecting a full backup, incremental backup, or snapshot merely chooses among conventional backup forms expressly contemplated for the claimed computing-resource backup.
19/227,367(Instant)
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the host environment comprises a public cloud service provider.
12,353,297(Reference)
8, 10
Analysis
The reference claims recite a host of a VPC and a virtual cloud environment. A public cloud service provider is an ordinary species of that claimed host environment; the limitation does not change the restoration operation.
19/227,367(Instant)
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing resource and the associated VPC are restored to a different host environment than an original host environment.
12,353,297(Reference)
10
Analysis
Reference claim 10 creates the destination VPC in a virtual cloud environment. Restoring to a different host is an expressly contemplated migration use of the same stored VPC configuration, including conversion for another host.
19/227,367(Instant)
11. A computer-implemented system for managing restoration of computing resources associated with virtual private clouds (VPCs), comprising: a secondary storage device configured to store backup copies of computing resources and associated VPC configurations; a media agent configured to retrieve stored VPC configurations from the secondary storage device, wherein the stored VPC configurations are captured through API calls to a host environment; and a storage manager configured to: confirm existence of the VPC in the host environment prior to submission of retrieved configurations, convert the retrieved configurations from a stored backup format to a format supported by the host environment, and submit retrieved VPC configurations to the host environment for recreating the VPC and restoring the computing resource within the recreated VPC.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 3
Analysis
Reference claim 3 (including claim 1) recites the same system-level restore request, stored API-derived VPC configuration, VPC creation, and VM restoration. Dividing the claimed processor functions among a media agent and storage manager is a predictable allocation of software responsibilities; the status check and conversion are obvious for the reasons stated for claim 1. Reference spec. ¶¶ 0101–0102, 0240, 0244–0247.
19/227,367(Instant)
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the retrieved VPC configurations comprise subnet definitions, security group definitions, ACL configurations, and routing table configurations.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 7
Analysis
The generic network/security configuration of reference claim 1 and subnet subject matter of claim 7 encompass the listed configuration categories. The enumeration is an obvious selection of standard VPC components.
19/227,367(Instant)
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the media agent further identifies discrepancies between current VPC configurations and stored VPC configurations.
12,353,297(Reference)
1
Analysis
Reference claim 1 determines that a VPC network entity is no longer available. Identifying discrepancies between current and stored configurations is a predictable implementation of that determination
19/227,367(Instant)
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the storage manager submits VPC configurations to recreate identified missing or altered network entities within an existing VPC.
12,353,297(Reference)
1
Analysis
Reference claim 1 requests recreation of an unavailable network entity using stored VPC configuration. Extending the same operation to an altered entity detected by comparison is an obvious variant producing the same restoration result.
19/227,367(Instant)
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the missing or altered network entities comprise subnetworks or routing tables.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 7
Analysis
Subnets and routing tables are ordinary species of the network entity and network/security configuration claimed in the reference patent; subnets are also expressly recited in reference claim 7.
19/227,367(Instant)
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the computing resources comprise virtual machines, database servers, or file system servers.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 3
Analysis
The virtual-machine alternative directly overlaps reference claims 1 and 3. Database and file-system servers are analogous computing resources handled by the same disclosed backup and recovery system.
19/227,367(Instant)
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the secondary storage device stores VPC configurations in a compressed or backup format.
12,353,297(Reference)
1
Analysis
Reference claim 1 stores VPC configuration in secondary storage. Compression or conversion into a backup format is a predictable storage implementation expressly contemplated within the embodiment supporting the claimed storage.
19/227,367(Instant)
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the storage manager provides a user interface enabling user selection and initiation of restoration operations of computing resources and associated VPC configurations.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 3
Analysis
Providing a user interface to select and initiate the recovery operation is a routine control mechanism for the processor-based system and is expressly described for storage-manager recovery operations.
19/227,367(Instant)
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the backup copies stored in the secondary storage device comprises a full backup copy, an incremental backup copy, or a snapshot.
12,353,297(Reference)
1, 3
Analysis
The reference system stores a backup copy. Full, incremental, and snapshot forms are conventional alternatives expressly contemplated for the claimed backup operation.
19/227,367(Instant)
20. The system of claim 11, wherein the storage manager submits retrieved configurations to a different host environment than an original host environment to facilitate migration of computing resources.
12,353,297(Reference)
3
Analysis
Reference claim 3 creates a VPC in a virtual cloud environment and restores the VM there. Selecting a different host to perform migration is an expressly contemplated use of the same claimed restoration workflow and predictably may require host-format conversion.
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(s) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b) as indefinite. Each claim requires confirming the existence of a VPC while also requiring recreation of the VPC from stored configurations. The specification describes confirmation of an existing destination VPC as an alternative to creation of a new VPC, expressly stating that the existing VPC is confirmed "without creating a new VPC." It is therefore unclear whether the claims require determining whether the VPC exists and recreating it only when absent, confirming an existing VPC and then recreating that same VPC, or confirming a first VPC while recreating a different VPC. The scope of the claimed restoration process cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b) as indefinite because the claim introduces computing resources and VPCs in the plural but subsequently recites "the VPC," "the computing resource," and "the recreated VPC" in the singular without establishing an antecedent relationship identifying the particular resource and VPC to which the storage-manager operations apply.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b) as indefinite because claim 13 identifies discrepancies between configurations, whereas claim 14 refers to "identified missing or altered network entities." The claims do not identify which component determines that a particular entity is missing or altered or establish that the discrepancies identified in claim 13 are the same as the network entities referenced in claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claim(s) 1 and 11 each contain the following limitations that distinguish the claims from the prior art:
managing restoration of computing resources associated with virtual private clouds (VPCs), comprising: a secondary storage device configured to store backup copies of computing resources and associated VPC configurations; a media agent configured to retrieve stored VPC configurations from the secondary storage device, wherein the stored VPC configurations are captured through API calls to a host environment; and a storage manager configured to: confirm existence of the VPC in the host environment prior to submission of retrieved configurations, convert the retrieved configurations from a stored backup format to a format supported by the host environment, and submit retrieved VPC configurations to the host environment for recreating the VPC and restoring the computing resource within the recreated VPC
The most relevant prior art is Lad et al.(20140317059) where the method enables creating a backup image as a snapshot of a computer, where the snapshot comprises an application-consistent image as of a specific point in time of a primary storage of the computer. Information representing a state of network connections of the computer is saved together with configuration information saved with the backup image. The backup image is loaded as a cloud computing node. The saved information regarding network connections is loaded together with the backup images, and is used to recreate the network connections of each computer(Lad, abstract).
Another relevant prior art is Makary et al.(20210357239) where The method involves obtaining a state of a virtual machine instance operating in a first cloud environment at a point in time. Metadata associated with the instance is obtained at the time. A metadata associated with the first cloud environment is obtained. The obtained state of the virtual machine instance is stored. The machine instance operating in the first cloud environment is terminated. The terminated virtual machine instance in the first cloud environment or a second cloud environment are restored at a later point in time based on one or more of the stored state of the virtual machine instance at the point in time by the one or more processors, stored metadata associated with the virtual machine instance at the point in time, and/or stored metadata associated with the first cloud environment at the point in time(Makary, abstract).
The instant claims therefore distinguish from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARVIND TALUKDAR whose telephone number is (303)297-4475. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6pm EST.
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.
Arvind Talukdar
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2132
/ARVIND TALUKDAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights