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 . Claims 1-9 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
20170132086
Pars. 37-43
Priority recovery of in-demand/recent data first.
20040153761
Pars. 28-38
Baseline backup. Logical links to prior unchanged files.
20110145196
Par. 39
Data backups including pointer/stub files
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12360852 B2, claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18, 20 of U.S. Patent No.: US 11977453 B2, and claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, 19 of U.S. Patent No.: US 11630737 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims encompass the instant claims.
Instant claims
Patent US 12360852 B2
1. A data management system comprising:
accessing means for accessing a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device; and
means for sending, in response to a training request, a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, each of the plurality of first VDFs being usable to gain access, via the accessing means, to a respective file of the plurality of back-up files.
2. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the means for sending are for sending, based on a request indicating performance analysis or quality assurance, active data files of the plurality of back-up files and a portion of the plurality of first VDFs corresponding to inactive data files of the plurality of back-up files.
3. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files and active data files of the plurality of back-up files.
4. A data management system comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and comprising instructions to cause the processor to:
access, via the transceiver, a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device; and
send, via the transceiver in response to a training request, a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, each of the plurality of first VDFs being usable to gain access, via the accessing means, to a respective file of the plurality of back-up files.
5. The data management system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to send, based on a request indicating performance analysis or quality assurance, active data files of the plurality of back-up files and a portion of the plurality of first VDFs corresponding to inactive data files of the plurality of back-up files.
6. The data management system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files and active data files of the plurality of back-up files.
7. A non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions to cause a processor of a data management system to:
access a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device; and
send, via the transceiver in response to a training request, a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, each of the plurality of first VDFs being usable to gain access, via the accessing means, to a respective file of the plurality of back-up files.
8. The non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium of claim 7, further comprising processor-readable instructions to cause the processor to send, based on a request indicating performance analysis or quality assurance, active data files of the plurality of back-up files and a portion of the plurality of first VDFs corresponding to inactive data files of the plurality of back-up files.
9. The non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files and active data files of the plurality of back-up files.
1. A data management system comprising:
accessing means for accessing a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device;
means for receiving a data replication request requesting replication of unstructured data and including an indication of a purpose of the data replication request; and
means for sending, in response to the data replication request and based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request, any one of: (1) a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, the plurality of first VDFs including information based on which the accessing means can access respective portions of the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device; (2) a plurality of second VDFs and some, but fewer than all, of the plurality of back-up files to the second data storage device; and (3) the plurality of back-up files to the second data storage device.
5. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the means for sending are for sending any one of (1), (2), and (3) based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request indicating training.
6. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the means for sending are for sending, based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request indicating performance analysis or quality assurance, active data files of the plurality of back-up files and a portion of the plurality of first VDFs corresponding to inactive data files of the plurality of back-up files.
7. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the means for sending are for sending, based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request indicating training, only the plurality of first VDFs to the second data storage device, wherein the plurality of first VDFs correspond to inactive data files and active data files of the plurality of back-up files.
8. A data management system comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and comprising instructions to cause the processor to:
access, via the transceiver, a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device;
receive, via the transceiver, a data replication request requesting replication of unstructured data and including an indication of a purpose of the data replication request; and
send, via the transceiver in response to the data replication request and based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request, any one of: (1) a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, the plurality of first VDFs including information based on which the accessing means can access respective portions of the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device; (2) a plurality of second VDFs and some, but fewer than all, of the plurality of back-up files to the second data storage device; and (3) the plurality of back-up files to the second data storage device.
12. The data management system of claim 8, wherein the instructions include instructions to cause the processor to send, via the transceiver, any one of (1), (2), and (3) based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request indicating training.
13. A non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions to cause a processor of a data management system to:
access a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device;
receive a data replication request requesting replication of unstructured data and including an indication of a purpose of the data replication request; and
send, in response to the data replication request and based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request, any one of: (1) a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, the plurality of first VDFs including information based on which the accessing means can access respective portions of the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device; (2) a plurality of second VDFs and some, but fewer than all, of the plurality of back-up files to the second data storage device; and (3) the plurality of back-up files to the second data storage device.
17. The data management system of claim 13, wherein the instructions include instructions to cause the processor to send any one of (1), (2), and (3) based on the indication of the purpose of the data replication request indicating training.
Patent US 11977453 B2
1. A data management system comprising:
accessing means for accessing a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device;
means for receiving a data replication request requesting replication of unstructured data; and
means for sending, in response to the data replication request, a plurality of Virtual Data Files (VDFs) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, the plurality of VDFs including information based on which the accessing means can access respective portions of the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device.
5. The data management system of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to active data files and a second portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files.
7. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the data replication request comprises an indication of a purpose for the data replication request, the purpose comprising at least one of performance analysis, quality assurance, development, disaster recovery testing, or training.
8. A data management system comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to:
receive, via the transceiver, a copy data request for replication of unstructured data;
access, in response to the copy data request, a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in a first data storage device, the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device;
send, in response to the copy data request, a plurality of Virtual Data Files (VDFs) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, the processor being configured to respond to receipt of information corresponding to a first portion of the plurality of VDFs to retrieve a second portion of the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device.
12. The data management system of claim 11, wherein the implicit request comprises an indication of a purpose for the copy data request, the purpose comprising at least one of performance analysis, quality assurance, development, disaster recovery testing, or training.
14. A non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions to cause a processor of a data management system to:
access, in response to receiving a data replication request requesting replication of unstructured data, a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device; and
send, in response to the data replication request, a plurality of Virtual Data Files (VDFs) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, the plurality of VDFs including information based on which the processor can access respective portions of the plurality of back-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device.
18. The non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein a first portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to active data files and a second portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files.
20. The non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the implicit request for data files comprises an indication of a purpose for the data replication request, the purpose comprising at least one of performance analysis, quality assurance, development, disaster recovery testing, or training.
Patent 11630737
1. A data management system comprising:
accessing means for accessing a first data storage device storing a plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data that back up original unstructured data files of a source data storage;
means for receiving a data replication request requesting replication of unstructured data from the first data storage device; and
means for sending, in response to the data replication request, a file system architecture and a plurality of Virtual Data Files (VDFs) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and separate from the source data storage, the file system architecture being usable to navigate to the plurality of VDFs, each VDF of the plurality of VDFs including information usable by the accessing means for accessing a respective backed-up file of unstructured data of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device.
2. The data management system of claim 1, further comprising means for sending a particular backed-up file of unstructured data, of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data, from the first data storage device to the second data storage device in response to receiving an indication of a selection of a particular VDF, of the plurality of VDFs, corresponding to the particular backed-up file of unstructured data.
5. The data management system of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to active data files of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data and a second portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data.
7. The data management system of claim 1, wherein the data replication request comprises an indication of a purpose for the data replication request, the purpose comprising at least one of performance analysis, quality assurance, development, or training.
8. A data management system comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to:
receive, via the transceiver, a copy data request for replication of unstructured data;
access, via the transceiver in response to the copy data request, a plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data, that back up original unstructured data files of a source data storage, stored in a first data storage device;
send, in response to the copy data request, a file system architecture and a plurality of Virtual Data Files (VDFs) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and separate from the source data storage, the file system architecture being usable to navigate to the plurality of VDFs, and the processor being configured to respond to receipt of information from each of the plurality of VDFs to retrieve a respective backed-up file of unstructured data of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device.
12. The data management system of claim 11, wherein the implicit request comprises an indication of a purpose for the copy data request, the purpose comprising at least one of performance analysis, quality assurance, development, or training.
14. A data management method comprising:
receiving, at a server, a copy data request for replication of unstructured data;
accessing, by the server in response to the copy data request, a plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data, that back up original unstructured data files of a source data storage, stored in a first data storage device;
sending, from the server in response to the copy data request, a file system architecture and a plurality of Virtual Data Files (VDFs) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and separate from the source data storage, the file system architecture being usable to navigate to the plurality of VDFs; and
responding, at the server, to receipt of information from each of the plurality of VDFs by retrieving a respective backed-up file of unstructured data of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data stored in the first data storage device.
17. The data management method of claim 14, wherein a first portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to active data files of the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data and a second portion of the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files the plurality of backed-up files of unstructured data.
19. The data management method of claim 17, wherein the copy data request comprises an indication of a purpose for the copy data request, the purpose comprising at least one of performance analysis, quality assurance, development, or training.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 4 includes “the accessing means.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 5-6 are likewise rejected.
Claim limitations “accessing means for accessing” and “means for sending” in claims 1 and 2, and “the accessing means” in claim 4 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosure in the specification of the actual logic or algorithms implemented by the disclosed processor, memory, transceiver, etc. necessary for carrying out each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourgeois et al., Pub. No.: 20180336210, hereinafter Bourgeois.
As per claim 1, Bourgeois discloses A data management system comprising:
accessing means for accessing a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device (par. 123 discloses that HubStor provides an archive/secondary storage tier and “maintains a synthetic full backup”. In each snapshot / crawl of the source file system, incremental changes including folder structures and item versions, are merged into the archive/secondary storage tier. Pars. 27-31, 128 disclose executing a backup copy of the source file system and recovering unstructured data); and
means for sending, in response to a training request, a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device (Pars. 27-30 disclose that, in a recovery scenario, a user may assign a first portion of the backup copy to be recovered in full and a second portion to be recovered as “pointers and stubs to the content rather than the recovered content”. Pars. 128-136 disclose that the RS-SAP establishes the remainder of the source file system as “ghost content” or “ghosted content,” covered using pointers and/or stubs (i.e. VDF’s), and generates the pointers/stubs for that ghosted portion. Pars. 123, 124-136 disclose that the second data storage device is separate from the archive/backup storage because the pointers/stubs are generated in the recovered source file system, while full backed-up content remains in the archive/secondary storage tier), each of the plurality of first VDFs being usable to gain access, via the accessing means, to a respective file of the plurality of back-up files (par. 121 disclose that if a user/application opens an item from the stub, a transparent recall mechanism fetches the item from the archive. Par. 136 discloses “seamless recall on demand from the backup copy for any ghosted data requested from a user application”. Claim interpretation notes: (1) “training request” is a statement of intended use and/or merely identifies a purpose of the request; (2) “VDF” is not expressly defined in the spec; instead, it is described in an open-ended and general manner. For example, par. 37 the published application says “A VDF may appear like the original data file that the VDF represents, e.g., with the same or similar icon as the file that the VDF represents, to the file system or a user of the file system and may provide secure, on-demand access (e.g., via a pointer) to a validated copy of the original data file.” Also, par. 46 says “provide information that can be used to access corresponding unstructured data, e.g., shortcuts (e.g., pointers)”. And par. 69 says it “may contain information to enable the VDF to appear like the particular data file, and information to be used in producing the indication of the particular data file.” None of these details are within the scope of the claim. The scope of a VDF of this claim is that it is just a thing that is sent to a second data storage device and can (but does not have to) be used to access a “back up” file by accessing a first data storage device).
As per claim 2, Bourgeois discloses The data management system of claim 1, wherein the means for sending are for sending, based on a request indicating performance analysis or quality assurance, active data files of the plurality of back-up files and a portion of the plurality of first VDFs corresponding to inactive data files of the plurality of back-up files (par. 27 discloses recovering unstructured datasets “whereby only the active data is recovered in full and the inactive data is ghosted”. Par. 124 discloses that only the most recent data “(e.g. that which was touched in the most recent two weeks)” is loaded back, while “the remainder of the dataset is represented as pointer items.” Par. 128 discloses that during recovery, the RS-SAP fetches from the backup copy the data to be recovered in full, while ghosted data is not recovered and instead is represented by generated pointers/stubs. Claim interpretation note: “performance analysis or quality assurance” is non-functional descriptive content and is a statement of intended use and/or merely identifies a purpose of the request).
As per claim 3, Bourgeois discloses The data management system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files and active data files of the plurality of back-up files (par. 124 discloses that the system has “the flexibility to generate pointers/stubs for any portion of the dataset in the recovery scope”. Pars. 137-141 disclose that full originals in recovered source file system may later be converted to ghosted items/pointers/stubs. Par. 144 says that “the concept may be applied to an archive wherein the entire archive is associated with … ghosted pointers and/or stubs”. Thus, Bourgeois discloses pointers/stubs corresponding to both inactive and active files.
As per claims 4-9, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected. See Bourgeois, pars. 256-263 for the transceiver, memory, processor, medium and system of claims 4 and 7.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason, Jr. et al., Pub. No.: 20120054156, hereinafter Mason.
As per claim 4, Mason discloses A data management system comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (pars. 9, 34, 75) and comprising instructions to cause the processor to:
access, via the transceiver, a first data storage device storing a plurality of back-up files of unstructured data corresponding to original unstructured data files corresponding to a source data storage device (see pars. 7, 33, 36, 40, Mason’s cloud write-once object-based data store stores versioned point in time copies of files from the local file system/local storage 206, and the agent can completely recover the state of the native file system from the cloud); and
send, via the transceiver in response to a training request, a plurality of first VDFs (Virtual Data Files) to a second data storage device that is separate from the first data storage device and that is separate from the source data storage device, each of the plurality of first VDFs being usable to gain access, via the accessing means, to a respective file of the plurality of back-up files (par. 55, fig.’s 17-19 disclose a user-initiated restore request. Pars. 8, 53-54 disclose that in response, metadata objects are restored first and stitched into the file system/cache so users can see the files before all file data is restored. Par. 41 discloses that each c-node (i.e. VDF) object is a structure including a pointer to the actual file data location in the data store. (Claim interpretation note: The scope of a VDF of this claim is that it is just a thing that is sent to a second data storage device and can (but does not have to) be used to access a “back up” file by accessing a first data storage device.) Pars. 38, 49 disclose that the restore target is the filer local disk cache/recovered local file system instance, separate from the cloud store and, upon recovery, separate from the failed/source local storage)
As per claim 5, Mason discloses The data management system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to send, based on a request indicating performance analysis or quality assurance (par. 55, fig.’s 17-19 discloses a restore request that triggers the same claimed sending/restoring operation. Claim interpretation note: “performance analysis or quality assurance” is non-functional descriptive content and is a statement of intended use and/or merely identifies a purpose of the request), active data files of the plurality of back-up files and a portion of the plurality of first VDFs corresponding to inactive data files of the plurality of back-up files (pars. 8, 53-54 disclose that metadata objects are restored first so files/directories appear available before all data is restored. Pars. 53-55 disclose that data may be restored later when a user opens the file, and that data can be retrieved from the cloud as needed. Thus, Mason sends/restores actual data for accessed (i.e. active) files and sends/restores c-node objects (that include pointers) corresponding to files not yet accessed (i.e. inactive) files, the pointers point to the actual file data location in the cloud data store; see par. 41).
As per claim 6, Mason discloses The data management system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of VDFs correspond to inactive data files and active data files of the plurality of back-up files (pars. 8, 40, 53 disclose metadata-first restoration for the entire file system or a portion of it, including user-selected files or directories, without limiting the restored pointer objects to active or recent files).
As per claims 1-3 and 7-9, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected. See Mason, pars. 9, 34, 75 for the system and medium and system of claims 1 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights