CTNF 19/237,718 CTNF 83914 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1 . The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 2. This Office Action is the first on the merit of the instant application filed on June 13, 2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 3. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are in independent form. Drawings 4. The drawings filed on June 13, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and considered and accepted. Priority 5. Applicant’s claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of a continuation U.S. Application No. 18/169,121, filed February 14, 2023, which claims the benefit and priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/352,992, filed on Jun 16, 2022, U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/357,526, filed on June 30, 2022, U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/412,243, I ed on September 30, 2022, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/378,486, filed on October 5, 2022, is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement 6. The information disclosure statement filed on July 08, 2025, October 01, 2025, December 18, 2025, January 15, 2026, March 05, 2026, and April 22, 2026 has been considered. The corresponding PTO-1449 has been electronically signed and attached. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 8 . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more, as analyzed under the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update. The claims, even when read in light of the specification, are directed to identifying matching snapshots using identifiers and selecting snapshots for replication based on the comparison of those identifiers, which can be characterized as a mental process involving observation, evaluation, comparison, and selection of information. The claims do not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the exception into practical application or amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Step 1: Statutory Category Claims 1-13 are directed to a “method,” Claims 14-17 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” Claim 18-20 is directed to a “computing system”. All claims fall within statutory categories. Step 2A: Prong One: Representative claim: Claim 1 - generating, by a computing system, a first snapshot and a second snapshot in a source file system of a source region; - assigning, by the computing system, a first identifier to the first snapshot and a second identifier to the second snapshot in the source file system, each identifier being configured to uniquely identify a family of snapshots; - receiving, by a computing system, a request to perform a replication between the source file system of the source region and a target file system of a target region; - in response to determining that the deviation condition for a candidate deviation event type is satisfied, detecting, by the location analysis engine, occurrence of a deviation event associated with a deviation event type; and - identifying, by the computing system, a matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region to use as a base snapshot for the replication based at least in part on a comparison; and - performing, by the computing system, the replication using deltas between the second snapshot and the base snapshot in the source file system. These limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, recite abstract ideas including: - collecting information, namely assign and obtaining identifiers associated with snapshots; - comparing information, namely comparing identifiers associated with snapshots; - evaluating information, namely determining whether a matched snapshots exists; - selecting information, namely selecting a matched snapshots as a replication base; and - managing information based on the comparison result.These activities fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because they describe observations, evaluations, comparisons, and selections that could be performed conceptually by a person reviewing records of snapshots and determining whether corresponding snapshots exist before deciding which snapshot to use as a base for further processing. The claims recite the result of comparing identifiers and selecting a matching snapshot but do not recite the specific technological mechanism used to perform the matching beyond generic comparison of identifiers. Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Independent claims 14 and 18 recites substantially the same abstract idea in different statutory forms. Dependent claims: Dependent claims 2, 15, and 19 Claims 2, 15, and 19 further recite assigning the identifier based on a creation order of snapshots. - Step 2A, Prong One : Assigning an identifier based on creation order is a form of categorizing and labelling information and remains part of the abstract information-management concept. - Step 2B (preview): The claim does not recite a specific technical mechanism for generating the identifier or improving computer functionality. Dependent claims 3, 16, and 20 Claims 3, 16, and 20 recite identifying the matched snapshot in a non-target file system. - Step 2A , Prong One : Searching for matching information in an alternative repository remains an information-comparison and selection activity. - Step 2B : The claim merely changes where the comparison is performed and does not recite a specific technological improvement to storage architecture. Dependent claims 4 and 5 Claims 4 and 5 recite performing in-region copying of the matched snapshot from the non-target file system to the target file system. - Step 2A, Prong One : Copying information after identifying a match is part of the overall information-management workflow. - Step 2B : The claims recite copying at a functional level and do not recite a specific nonconventional copying mechanism or storage-management improvement. Dependent claims 6-8 Claims 6-8 recite performing the identifier comparison between identifiers assigned to source snapshots and identifiers associated with snapshots in the target region. - Step 2A, Prong One : Comparing identifiers to determine correspondence remains an abstract process of evaluating and matching information. - Step 2B : The claims do not recite a specific comparison algorithm or unconventional identifier structure. Dependent claims 9-13 Claims 9-13 recite families of duplicate snapshots and identifiers associated with those families. - Step 2A, Prong One: Grouping snapshots into families and determining whether identifiers correspond to those families remains categorization and comparison of information. - Step 2B: The claims do not recite a specific technical implementation for maintaining the family relationships or identifiers in a manner that improves computer functionality. Step 2A - Prong Two: The Claims Do Not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claims recite: - source file systems; - target file systems; - snapshots; - processors; - storage media; and - replication operations, these elements are used as tools to implement the abstract process of collecting, comparing, and selecting information.The claims do not: - recite a particular provenance-ID architecture: - recite a specific algorithm for determining snapshot ancestry: - recite a specific improvement to file-system architecture; - recite a specific improvement to network communication protocol; - recite a specific improvement to delta-generation techniques.Instead, the claims broadly recite: - assigning identifiers, - comparing identifiers, - identifying matching snapshots, - selecting a snapshot, - generating deltas, and - replicating the deltas. The specification describes technological benefits such as reducing network traffic, reducing I/O traffic, and avoiding transfer of full snapshots. However, the claims do not recite the specific provenance-ID-based mechanisms described as achieving those benefits and instead claim the results at a high level of abstraction. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application. Step 2B: The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More Than the Abstract idea The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include: Processors; Computer-readable storage media; File systems; Snapshots; Replication operations; and Delta-generation operations. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and storage operations. The claims do not recite: - a specific provenance identifier format;- a specific snapshot-lineage data structure;- a specific matching algorithm;- a specific replication protocol;- a specific improvement to computer memory operation;- a specific improvement to processor operation; or - any other unconventional technical implementation. The claims instead recite the desired result of locating corresponding snapshots using identifiers and using those snapshots to support replication. Considering the elements both individually and as ordered combination, the claims merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer and storage-system components performing their ordinary functions. Therefore, the claims and do not include additional elements that amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself Conclusion Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas involving collecting, evaluating, and selecting information to determine replication activities, and do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 9. 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. 08-34 AIA 10. Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,588 B2.11. Below is a sample comparison table between the instant application and U.S. Patent No.12,368,588 B2. Instant Application (19/237,718) U.S. Patent No. 12,368,588 B2 1 . A method, comprising: 1. A method, comprising: generating, by a computing system, a first snapshot and a second snapshot in a source file system of a source region; generating, by a computing system, a first snapshot and a second snapshot in a source file system in a source region; assigning, by the computing system, a first identifier to the first snapshot and a second identifier to the second snapshot in the source file system, each identifier being configured to uniquely identify a family of snapshots ; assigning, by the computing system, a first provenance identification to the first snapshot and a second provenance identification to the second snapshot in the source file system, each provenance identification being configured to uniquely identify a family of duplicate snapshots across all regions, and the family of duplicate snapshots comprising one or more child snapshots that are duplicates from a parent snapshot; receiving, by a computing system, a request to perform a replication between the source file system of the source region and a target file system of a target region; receiving, by the computing system, a request to perform a cross-region replication between the source file system in the source region and a target file system in a target region, the source region and the target region being different regions from each other; identifying, by the computing system, a matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region to use as a base snapshot for the replication based at least in part on a comparison; and comparing, by the computing system, the first provenance identification assigned to the first snapshot in the source file system to provenance identifications of existing snapshots in the target region prior to the requested cross-region replication starting; performing, by the computing system, the replication using deltas between the second snapshot and the base snapshot in the source file system . identifying, by the computing system, a matched snapshot with the first provenance identification in the target region to use as a base snapshot for the cross-region replication based at least in part on the comparison , the matched snapshot in the target region being a duplicate of the first snapshot in the source region created prior to the requested cross-region replication starting; and performing, by the computing system, the requested cross-region replication between the source file system and the target file system using deltas between the second snapshot and the base snapshot in the source file system. 12 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed inventions are directed to substantially the same subject matter involving identifying a matching snapshot in a target region using an identifier associated with a family of snapshots, selecting the matching snapshot as a replication base snapshot, and performing replication using deltas generated from the selected base snapshot. The differences between the claimed subject matter are considered obvious variations that would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . Specifically, the instant claims broadly recite and “identifier” associated with a family of snapshots, whereas the reference claims recite a more specific “provenance identification” associate with a family of duplicate snapshots. The provenance identification of the reference is merely a species of the broader identifier recited in the claims. Broadening the provenance identification to a generic identifier would have been an obvious design choice and does not render the instant claims patentably distinct. Furthermore, both claim set perform substantially the same sequence of operation: a) assigning identifiers to snapshots; b) comparing the identifier associated with snapshots in a target region; c) identifying a matching snapshot; d) selecting the matching snapshot as a replication base snapshot; and e) performing replication using deltas generated . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 13. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 14. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 15. The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA 16. Claim s 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. U.S. 20240028466 (hereinafter Duggal) in view of Gupta et al. U.S. 2023/0080691 A1 (hereinafter Gupta) . Regarding claim 1, Duggal discloses a method, comprising: generating, by a computing system, a first snapshot and a second snapshot in a source file system of a source region (Duggal [0095]-[0096] e.g., “…upon a first snapshot of the namespace being taken…” and “…upon a second snapshot of the namespace being taken … “, see also [Figure 9, steps 920 and 935]. See also [0117] e.g., “…with each snapshot taken of the namespace,…”, see also [Figure 7, step 715]. This teaches “first snapshot” and “second snapshot”); assigning, by the computing system, a first identifier to the first snapshot and a second identifier to the second snapshot in the source file system (Duggal [Figure 9, element 925] e.g., “Assign a first snapshot identifier to the first snapshot”, and see also [Figure 9, element 940] e.g., “Increment the first snapshot identifier to generate a second snapshot identifier”, then see [Figure 9, element 945] e.g., “Assign the second snapshot identifier to the second snapshot identifier”. This clearly teaches the claim limitation), each identifier being configured to uniquely identify a family of snapshots (Duggal [0070] e.g., “Identifiers are defined to the pages as a tuple that includes an mtree identifier (e.g., “mid”), a snapshot identifier (e.g., “sid”), and a page number), see also [Figure 8, elements 815,820,825, and 830] e.g., “<logical partition ID (mid) : snapshot ID (sid) : page number>”. This disclosure explains that pages are tracked according to snapshot identifiers and that snapshot identifiers distinguish which snapshot owns a page. See [Figurers 7-12 and associated discussion). Duggal does not explicitly disclose: receiving, by a computing system, a request to perform a replication between the source file system of the source region and a target file system of a target region; identifying, by the computing system, a matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region to use as a base snapshot for the replication based at least in part on a comparison; and performing, by the computing system, the replication using deltas between the second snapshot and the base snapshot in the source file system. Gupta discloses receiving, by a computing system, a request to perform a replication between the source file system of the source region and a target file system of a target region (Gupta [Abstract] e.g., “A reference snapshot selection technique is configured to select a reference snapshot resolution algorithm used to determine an appropriate reference snapshot that may be employed to perform incremental snapshot replication of workload data between primary and secondary sites in a data replication environment” see also [Figure 4] Figure 4 shows “Primary Site A” and “Secondary Site B” connected by replication. The disclosure repeatedly discusses requests between source and destination environments); identifying, by the computing system, a matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region to use as a base snapshot for the replication based at least in part on a comparison (Gupta [0010] e.g., “…a reference resolution procedure is configured to process a set of constraints from the data replication environment to dynamically select the reference snapshot resolution algorithm…”. See also [Figure 5, element 550] e.g., “Resolve reference snapshot based on calculated figure of merit”. Examiner equated the “reference snapshot” with the claimed “base snapshot”); and performing, by the computing system, the replication using deltas between the second snapshot and the base snapshot in the source file system (Gupta [0010] e.g., “…to perform incremental snapshot replication of workload data between primary and secondary sites in a data replication environment”. See also [0032] e.g., “At step 560, incremental snapshot replication is performed using the resolved reference snapshot from the prior step and, at step 570, the reference resolution procedure ends.” see also [Figure 5, element 560] e.g., “Perform incremental snapshot replication using the resolved reference snapshot”. This shows naturally replicate using delta between a current snapshot and a base/reference snapshot). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamically adaptive technique for reference snapshot selection taught by Gupta with storing namespace metadata in a key value store to facilitate space efficient point in time snapshots taught by Duggal. Doing so would have predictably improved snapshot management and correspondence between source and target systems by uniquely identifying snapshots and facilitating efficient selection of appropriate base/reference snapshots for incremental replication. Such modification merely combines know snapshot-identification techniques with known incremental replication techniques to obtain predictable results. Claims 14 and 18 incorporated substantially all the limitations of claim 1 in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Duggal [0129] e.g., “…a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein”), and a system comprising one or mor processor and one or more computer readable media (Duggal [0128] e.g., “…a system comprising: a processor; and memory configured to store one or more sequences of instructions…”) and are rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, further comprising selecting the matched snapshot as the base snapshot at least in response to the matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region being in the target file system (Gupta [0028] e.g., “…a common snapshot … may be used as a reference snapshot”. See also [0032] e.g., “…incremental snapshot replication is performed using the resolved reference snapshot”. Gupta teaches selecting the matched snapshot as the base (i.e. reference) snapshot). Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, wherein the target region comprises a non-target file system having a different snapshot associated with the first identifier (Duggal [0072] e.g., “…the snapshot identifiers are used to track pages that are shared between different (e.g., first and second) snapshots”. This teaches different snapshots and associates through the same snapshot tracking mechanism. See also [0092] e.g., “…a point in time copy of a namespace identified by “mid1” … can be taken and exposed as <mid2:0>”. This shows that mid1 equal to one file system/namespace, and mid2 equal to another file system/namespace. This is close to “non-targe file system having a different snapshot associated with the first identifier. Additional support (Gupta [0028] e.g., “…the primary site and secondary sites include a large number of workload (e.g., vdisk) snapshots, some of which may be common among the sites as a result of previous replication”). A POSITA would understand that corresponding snapshots may exist in different storage constructs within the target environment. Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, further comprising selecting the first snapshot with the first identifier in the source file system as the base snapshot at least in response to no matched snapshot with the first identifier being found in the target region (Gupta [0025] e.g., “… a base snapshot that is used as a reference … is required at each site”, see also [0028] e.g., “… a common snapshot that is “close,” … may be used as a reference snapshot…”, see also [0030] e.g., “… another (less optimal) reference resolution algorithm may involve selection of a common snapshot that is an immediate ancestor (e.g., parent file) of the source snapshot as a reference snapshot … “, see also [0032] e.g., “…the reference snapshot resolution algorithm … is used to resolve a reference snapshot.”. Gupta teaches reference snapshot selection, alternative reference snapshot selection algorithm, and choosing another snapshot when a preferred common snapshot is unavailable or unsuitable). Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, wherein the comparison is between the first identifier in the source file system and other identifiers of existing snapshots in the target region (Duggal [0118] e.g., “… a key identifying the page is examined to determine whether the key includes a snapshot identifier that is different from a snapshot identifier of the active btree”, see also [0088] e.g., “… if a snapshot identifier of the page is different from a snapshot identifier of the active btree,…”. Duggal teaches comparison of snapshot identifiers to determine relationships among snapshots). Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, wherein the requested replication comprises a cross-region replication (Gupta [0023] e.g., “The data replication environment includes two or more datacenters … geographically separated … “, see also [0026] e.g., “… primary site A and a secondary site B” Gupta expressly teaches replication between geographically separated sites). Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, wherein the source region and the target region comprise different regions from each other (Gupta [0023] e.g., “ The data replication environment includes two or more datacenters, i.e., sites, which are typically geographically separated by relatively large distances and connected over a communication network, such as a WAN. For example, data at a local datacenter (e.g., primary site) may be replicated over the network to one or more remote datacenters (e.g., secondary site) located at geographically separated distances to ensure continuity of data processing operations in the event of a failure of the nodes at the primary site”. The primary and secondary sites are different regions/sites participating in replication). Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the operations further comprise selecting the matched snapshot as the base snapshot at least in response to that the matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region being in the target file system (Gupta [0028] e.g., “…a common snapshot … may be used as a reference snapshot”. See also [0032] e.g., “…incremental snapshot replication is performed using the resolved reference snapshot”. Gupta teaches selecting the matched snapshot as the base (i.e. reference) snapshot). Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the target region comprises a non-target file system having a snapshot associated with the first identifier (Duggal [0072] e.g., “…the snapshot identifiers are used to track pages that are shared between different (e.g., first and second) snapshots”. This teaches different snapshots and associates through the same snapshot tracking mechanism. See also [0092] e.g., “…a point in time copy of a namespace identified by “mid1” … can be taken and exposed as <mid2:0>”. This shows that mid1 equal to one file system/namespace, and mid2 equal to another file system/namespace. This is close to “non-targe file system having a different snapshot associated with the first identifier. Additional support (Gupta [0028] e.g., “…the primary site and secondary sites include a large number of workload (e.g., vdisk) snapshots, some of which may be common among the sites as a result of previous replication”). A POSITA would understand that corresponding snapshots may exist in different storage constructs within the target environment. Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a system, wherein the system is further caused to select the matched snapshot as the base snapshot at least in response to the matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region being in the target file system (Gupta [0028] e.g., “…a common snapshot … may be used as a reference snapshot”. See also [0032] e.g., “…incremental snapshot replication is performed using the resolved reference snapshot”. Gupta teaches selecting the matched snapshot as the base (i.e. reference) snapshot). Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a system, wherein the target region comprises a non-target file system having a snapshot associated with the first identifier (Duggal [0072] e.g., “…the snapshot identifiers are used to track pages that are shared between different (e.g., first and second) snapshots”. This teaches different snapshots and associates through the same snapshot tracking mechanism. See also [0092] e.g., “…a point in time copy of a namespace identified by “mid1” … can be taken and exposed as <mid2:0>”. This shows that mid1 equal to one file system/namespace, and mid2 equal to another file system/namespace. This is close to “non-targe file system having a different snapshot associated with the first identifier. Additional support (Gupta [0028] e.g., “…the primary site and secondary sites include a large number of workload (e.g., vdisk) snapshots, some of which may be common among the sites as a result of previous replication”). A POSITA would understand that corresponding snapshots may exist in different storage constructs within the target environment . 07-22-aia AIA 17. Claim s 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. U.S. 20240028466 (hereinafter Duggal) in view of Gupta et al. U.S. 2023/0080691 A1 (hereinafter Gupta) as applied to claim s 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Eggers et al. US20140236899A1 (hereinafter Eggers) . Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, further comprising: [performing an in-region copying of the matched snapshot with the first identifier] from the non-target file system to the target file system (Duggal [0092] e.g., “… a point in time copy of a namespace identified by “mid1” … can be taken and exposed as <mid2:0>. Then clients can access and modify “mid2” without impacting mtree “mid1.” “. This teaches one namespace/file system (mid1), another namespace/file system (mid2) and copying/exposing a snapshot into the second namespace.) at least in response to the matched snapshot with the first identifier in the target region not being in the target file system (Gupta [0025] e.g., “… a base snapshot that is used as a reference … is required at each site”); and selecting the in-region copy of the matched snapshot in the target file system as the base snapshot (Gupta [0025] e.g., “… a base snapshot that is used as a reference ... “. See also [0028] e.g., “… a common snapshot … may be used as a reference snapshot”). The combined teaching of Duggal and Gupta does not explicitly teach performing an in-region copying of the matched snapshot with the first identifier [from the non-target file system to the target file system]. Eggers discloses performing an in-region copying of the matched snapshot with the first identifier (Eggers [0026] e.g., “… creates and migrates a copy of the oldest snapshot …” and see also [0020] e.g., “Hierarchical snapshot engine 152 is responsible for controlling the migration of snapshots throughout the layers of IT infrastructure environment 110”. Eggers expressly teaches: snapshot copy, snapshot migration, moving snapshots among storage locations, which corresponds closely to the claimed operation) [from the non-target file system to the target file system (Duggal [0092] e.g., “… a point in time copy of a namespace identified by “mid1” … can be taken and exposed as <mid2:0>. Then clients can access and modify “mid2” without impacting mtree “mid1.” “. This teaches one namespace/file system (mid1), another namespace/file system (mid2) and copying/exposing a snapshot into the second namespace]. Together with Eggers’ migration, this provides a good mapping for movement from one file system to another). [selecting the in-region copy of the matched snapshot in the target file system as the base snapshot (Gupta [0025] e.g., “… a base snapshot that is used as a reference ... “. See also [0028] e.g., “… a common snapshot … may be used as a reference snapshot”] See also (Eggers [0026] e.g., “… creates and migrates a copy of the oldest snapshot… determines differential data between the newer snapshot and the migrated copy of the oldest snapshot,”. This shows that the migrated copy is being used as the comparison/reference point for determining differences. This is very close to “selecting the copied snapshot as the base snapshot”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine snapshot management in hierarchical storage infrastructure taught by Eggers with the combined teaching of Duggal and Gupta in order to copy a matched snapshot from another file system within the target region into the target file system and use the copied snapshot as the reference/base snapshot in order to facilitate Gupta’s incremental replication process when the desired reference snapshot is not already present in the target file system. Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal, Gupta, and Eggers discloses a method, wherein the in-region copy of the matched snapshot in the target file system has a same first identifier but different resource identification from the matched snapshot in the non-target file system (Duggal [0092] e.g., “… a point in time copy of a namespace identified by “mid1”… can be taken and exposed as <mid2:0>…”. Duggal teaches creating a copy of a namespace/snapshot and exposing it through another namespace. See also [0072] e.g., “… the snapshot identifiers are used to track pages that are shared between different (e.g., first and second) snapshots”, see also [0095] e.g., “… assigning a first snapshot identifier to the first snapshot…” and [0096] e.g., “… assigning the second snapshot identifier to the second snapshot…”. These paragraphs support the use of snapshot identifiers as logical identifiers independent of the storage location. Eggers [0026] e.g., “… creates and migrates a copy of the oldest snapshot…”. Migration inherently places the copy at a different storage location/resource than the original snapshot). Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta discloses a method, further comprising performing a cross-region copying of the first snapshot with the first identifier from the source file system to the target file system before generating the deltas between the second snapshot and the base snapshot in the source file system (Gupta [0026] e.g., “… a first snapshot S1 of the failover data is generated at the primary site A and replicated (e.g., via a form of asynchronous snapshot replication) to secondary site B as a base or reference snapshot S1”. This is essentially: source site, target site, and snapshot copied/replicated first. Further [0026] e.g., “… only incremental changes (deltas Δs)… need be sent (e.g., via incremental replication) to site B,…”. See also (Eggers [0026] e.g., “…creates and migrates a copy of the oldest snapshot … determines differential data between the newer snapshot and the migrated copy of the oldest snapshot”. Gupta teaches replication of a first snapshot to a remote site as a reference snapshot prior to transmitting deltas associated with a later snapshots [0026]. Eggers further teaches creating and migrating a copy of a snapshot and subsequently determining differential data relative to the migrated copy [0026]) . 07-22-aia AIA 18. Claim s 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. U.S. 20240028466 (hereinafter Duggal) in view of Gupta et al. U.S. 2023/0080691 A1 (hereinafter Gupta) as applied to claim s 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18- 20 above, and further in view of Tatsumi et al. US20240176520A1 (hereinafter Tatsumi) . Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal and Gupta does not explicitly discloses a method, wherein the family of snapshots comprise duplicate snapshots across a set of regions. Tatsumi discloses wherein the family of snapshots comprise duplicate snapshots across a set of regions (Tatsumi [Abstract] e.g., “A snapshot virtual device (SS-VDEV) is prepared for each snapshot family (SS-Family)…”. See also [0070] e.g., “The SS-Family 9 is a VOL group including a PVOL 10P and an SVOL 10S which is a snapshot of the PVOL 10P”, see also [0009] e.g., “ When there is duplicated data in two or more snapshot virtual devices of two or more snapshot families,…” Tatsumi expressly teaches snapshot families and duplicated snapshots maintained among those families). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine storage system processor update map information address duplicate data snapshot virtual device taught by Tatsumi in the combined teaching of Duggal and Gupta in order the snapshot identifiers to identify duplicate relationships among snapshots independently of the particular storage resource on which the snapshots reside. Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal, Gupta, and Tatsumi discloses a method, wherein the family of duplicate snapshots comprise one or more child snapshots that are duplicates from a parent snapshot (Tatsumi [0107] e.g., “ Generation 0 ... is referred to as a “parent” … generation 1 … is referred to as a “child”…”. Further [0107] e.g., “The storage system manages a parent-child relationship…”. This limitation is essentially expressly disclosed by Tatsumi’s parent-child generation lineage). Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Duggal, Gupta, and Tatsumi discloses a method, wherein each identifier identifies data duplicates of the family of duplicate snapshots without considering infrastructure resources (Tatsumi [0009] e.g., “When there is duplicated data in two or more snapshot virtual devices of two or more snapshot families…”. See also [0082] e.g., “… since data C is duplicated in the SS-VDEVs 11S0 and 11S1 of the SS-Families 9-0 and 9-1”. These teach duplicate-data relationships. See also (Duggal [Abstract] e.g., “The snapshot identifiers are used to track pages that are shared between first and second snapshots”. See also [0070] identifiers include: mtree identifier, snapshot identifier, and page number). Tatsumi teaches duplicate-data relationships among members of snapshot families, while Duggal teaches logical snapshot identifier used to track shared data among snapshots). Conclusion 19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU MITIKU whose telephone number is (571)270-1983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:30AM – 4:00PM. 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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. /BERHANU MITIKU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2156 /AJAY M BHATIA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 2 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 3 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 4 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 5 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 6 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 7 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 8 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 9 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 10 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 11 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 12 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 13 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 14 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 15 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 16 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 17 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 18 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 19 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 20 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 21 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 22 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 23 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 24 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 25 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 26 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 27 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 28 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 29 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 30 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 31 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 32 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 33 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 19/237,718 Page 34 Art Unit: 2156
Prosecution Insights