DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 12 August 2026 have been considered. The amendments do not overcome the rejection under section 102, as described below in the updated mapping to address the newly-introduced claim limitations. It is noted that language along the lines of “enabling a storage system to replicate,” used throughout the claims, as functional language, carries little patentable weight: because the outcome of the replication is recited without details of how the replication is performed, and because the mapping and the information identifying the consistency group appear to be sufficient, on their own, to enable any system to replicate the identified consistency group based on the mapping and the information identifying the consistency group, transmitting the generated metadata update inherently includes the enabling information because it is explicitly recited as being included in the metadata update when it was generated in the first place: what other information, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is necessary to enable the replication?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwamura et al., US 2008/0104347 A1.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Iwamura teaches:
generating, by a first storage system of a plurality of storage systems configured to replicate a dataset, a metadata update describing a mapping of a dataset segment to a virtual address of a storage object storing at least a portion of the dataset, wherein the metadata update comprises information identifying a consistency group comprising a group of storage objects storing portions of the dataset, wherein the storage object is included in the group of storage objects of the consistency group, Iwamasu ¶¶ 0074, 0134, 0435-38, where the volumes are consistency groups, and where changes to the virtual address/real address mappings of identified storage blocks – the claimed storage objects – are determined; and
transmitting the metadata update from the first storage system to a second storage system of the plurality of storage systems, wherein the metadata update includes information that enables any storage system of the plurality of storage systems to replicate, based on the mapping and the information identifying the consistency group, a snapshot of the consistency group, Iwamura ¶¶ 0074 (“the I/O interface corresponding to the volume 5040 provided by the HBA device drive”), 0134, 0438 (“thereafter sends the contents of change in the virtual address/real address mapping table 15009A to the storage apparatus 15000B.”), where the information identifying the volume enables selection of the proper driver and therefore enables replication.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
generating the metadata update based on receiving an input/output (I/O) operation directed to the dataset, Iwamura ¶ 0435 (“operating system 14001 that received a write request from the application program 14002”); and
applying the I/O operation to the dataset on the first storage system, Iwamura ¶¶ 0435-37, where the write request is applied on storage apparatus 15000A.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the metadata update includes information identifying a snapshot identifier for the snapshot of the group of storage elements, Iwamura ¶ 0064, and
wherein the information identifying the snapshot identifier enables replication of the snapshot, Iwamura ¶¶ 0074, 0438, where the information identifying the volume is used to identifying what volume the mapping is used to replicate.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the metadata update includes a sequence number indicating an order of I/O operations for the dataset, Iwamura ¶ 0304, and
wherein the sequence number enables replication of the snapshot, Iwamura ¶¶ 0074, 0304, where, inasmuch as the information is used and the use results in the replication, the number enables replication, at a broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the virtual address corresponds to a block address within a logical volume, Iwamura ¶ 0074.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the storage object is implemented as a volume, Iwamura ¶¶ 0058, 0074, where the blocks are implemented as part of a volume.
As per claims 10 and 17, the rejection of claims 9 and 16 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
responsive to successfully applying the I/O operation on the first storage system, updating, on the first storage system and in accordance with the metadata update, a version of metadata corresponding to the dataset prior to applying the I/O operation, Iwamura ¶ 0437.
As per claims 11 and 18, the rejection of claims 9 and 16 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the metadata update includes a description of an update to be made to represent application of the I/O operation, Iwamura ¶ 0439, where the contents of change describe the changes.
As per claims 12 and 19, the rejection of claims 8 and 15 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the group of storage objects that share at least one common characteristic, Iwamura ¶¶ 0058, 0074, where the blocks are implemented as part of a volume.
As per claims 13 and 20, the rejection of claims 12 and 19 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the at least one common characteristic includes a particular host, a particular application, a particular virtual machine, or a particular container, Iwamura ¶ 0060, where the RAID parity group is the particular container.
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
wherein the group of storage objects share at least one of: a particular host, a particular application, a particular virtual machine, or a particular container, Iwamura ¶ 0074, where the volume is a container.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Iwamura further teaches:
replicating, based on the mapping and the information identifying the consistency group, the snapshot of the consistency group, Iwamura ¶¶ 0074 (“the I/O interface corresponding to the volume 5040 provided by the HBA device drive”), 0134, 0438 (“thereafter sends the contents of change in the virtual address/real address mapping table 15009A to the storage apparatus 15000B.”), where the information identifying the volume enables selection of the proper driver and therefore enables replication.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,884,993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage the instant invention upon reading the ’993 patent.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,687,500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage the instant invention upon reading the ’500 patent.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage the instant invention upon reading the ’866 patent.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights