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 in response to the application filed on 06/10/2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for the examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/10/2025 are 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,106. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1, 13, 20 (each recite the same limitations as claim 1) are generic to all that is recited in claim 1 o US Patent No. 12,367,106. That is, claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,367,106 falls entirely within the scope of claim 1. Claims 1, 13, 20 is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,367,106. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-19 are rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Instant application 19/234086
US Patent No. 12,367,106
1.A computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting a unit of data of a backup image; determining whether a duplicate unit of data is stored in an existing data storage construct, wherein the duplicate unit of data is a duplicate of the selected unit of data, and wherein the existing data storage construct is stored in immutable storage;
in response to a determination that the duplicate unit of data exists in the existing data storage construct, determining whether the existing data storage construct is designated as being available to be referenced; and
in response to the existing data storage construct being designated as being unavailable to be referenced, storing the unit of data in a new data storage construct.
1.A method comprising: performing an update process on at least one of a plurality of existing data storage constructs, comprising determining a state of the at least one of the plurality of existing data storage constructs, comparing the state of the at least one of the plurality of existing data storage constructs and one or more thresholds determined by performing a threshold determination process, determining whether the state of the at least one of the plurality of existing data storage constructs meets the one or more thresholds, and in response to the state of the at least one of the plurality of existing data storage constructs meeting the one or more thresholds, designating the at least one of the plurality of existing data storage constructs as being unavailable; selecting a unit of data of a backup image; determining whether a duplicate unit of data is stored in an existing data storage construct of the plurality of existing of data storage constructs, wherein the duplicate unit of data is a duplicate of the unit of data, and the existing data storage construct of the plurality of existing of data storage constructs is stored in immutable storage; and in response to a determination that the duplicate unit of data exists in the existing data storage construct of the plurality of existing of data storage constructs, determining whether the existing data storage construct of the plurality of existing of data storage constructs is designated as being available to be referenced, in response to the existing data storage construct of the plurality of existing of data storage constructs being designated as being available to be referenced, updating a reference to the duplicate unit of data, and in response to the existing data storage construct of the plurality of existing of data storage constructs being designated as being unavailable to be referenced, storing the unit of data in a new data storage construct.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-14, 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chhaunker et al. (US 2013/0144846, referred herein after Chhaunker).
As per claim 1, 15, 20, Chhaunker discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting a unit of data of a backup image (Fig. 6, step 610, [0082]-[0084]);
determining whether a duplicate unit of data is stored in an existing data storage construct, wherein the duplicate unit of data is a duplicate of the selected unit of data, and wherein the existing data storage construct is stored in immutable storage (Fig. 6, step 615, 620, [0084]-[0086]);
in response to a determination that the duplicate unit of data exists in the existing data storage construct, (Fig. 6, step 615, 620, “yes” branch);
determining whether the existing data storage construct is designated as being available to be referenced; and ([0022], [0023], [0050], file can have pointers to be referenced);
in response to the existing data storage construct being designated as being unavailable to be referenced, storing the unit of data in a new data storage construct (Fig. 6, step 640, [0086]-[0087], “The file with the latest expiration date is saved in the shared storage as a master copy, and all other files from the group consisting of the file from step 610 and redundant files from steps 615 and 620, except for the file saved as the master copy, are deleted and replaced with a soft link that points to the master copy”).
As per claim 2, 16, Chhaunker discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to the existing data storage construct being designated as being unavailable to be referenced, updating a reference to the duplicate unit of data, wherein the backup image comprises the reference (Fig. 6, step 635, [0085], “saving the immutable file as the master copy, updating immutability information for the master file, and changing mutable redundant copies to point to the master copy”).
As per claim 3, 17, Chhaunker discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to the existing data storage construct being designated as being available to be referenced, updating a reference to the duplicate unit of data (Fig. 6, step 635, [0085], soft link (ie reference) pointer to master copy is saved).
As per claim 6, Chhaunker discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the backup image is one of a plurality of backup images; and the immutable storage periodically permits deletion of the existing data storage construct (Fig. 6, [0021]-[0023], “the deduplication agent deletes the mutable file and points it to the immutable file which is saved as the master copy”).
As per claim 7, Chhaunker discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising deleting the existing data storage construct if none of the plurality of backup images comprise references to the existing data storage construct (Fig. 6, [0021]-[0023], “the deduplication agent deletes the mutable file and points it to the immutable file which is saved as the master copy”).
As per claim 9, Chhaunker discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether the existing data storage construct is designated as being available; and in response to a determination that the existing data storage construct is designated as being available, performing an update process on the existing data storage construct (Fig. 6, [0084], [0085]).
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.
Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhaunker in view of Cannon et al. (US 20090125572, referred herein as Cannon)..
As per claim 10, Chhaunker does not specifically discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein determining the one or more thresholds comprises: determining a retention period of a new container stored in the immutable storage; and determining a remaining retention period, wherein the remaining retention period is a portion of a retention period remaining for the existing data storage construct;
However, Cannon discloses determining the one or more thresholds comprises: determining a retention period of a new container stored in the immutable storage; and (Fig. 2, step 22, [0029], [0030], volume retention period is established);
determining a remaining retention period, wherein the remaining retention period is a portion of a retention period remaining for the existing data storage construct (Fig. 2, step 24, 26, [0030]-[0031]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Canon’s method for managing retention of data on WORM disk media into Chhaunker’s method of managing redundant immutable files using deduplication in storage because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to protect the data from overwrites and deletes.
As per claim 8, Chhaunker does not specifically discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining one or more thresholds associated with the existing data storage construct;
However, Cannon discloses determining one or more thresholds associated with the existing data storage construct ([0011], [0012], [0028]-[0031]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Canon’s method for managing retention of data on WORM disk media into Chhaunker’s method of managing redundant immutable files using deduplication in storage because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to protect the data from overwrites and deletes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Fischer-Toubol teaches a method that relates to space reclamation in a data deduplication storage system.
Zhang teaches a deduplication storage system with efficient reference updating and space reclamation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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 on 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 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights