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 .
1. This is in response to the communications filed on 05 August 2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 have been rejected.
4. Claim 8 has been objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05 August 2025.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claims 1, 16 and 20 recite “receiv[ing] a storage node”. The examiner asserts that this should recite “receiv[ing] at a storage node”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Neither the instant application nor the parent application provide support for the limitation of “calling a plugin in response to issuing a second request indicating the first identifier, wherein receiving the indication of the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier is based at least in part on calling the plugin”. The specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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.
8. Claims 1, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi).
As to claim 1, the ‘930 patent discloses a method for data management, comprising:
receiving a storage node within a cluster of storage nodes (i.e. at a server hosted by a storage node within a cluster of storage nodes in a data management system) [column 26, lines 47-51], a request to access a file stored in a distributed file system [column 26, lines 47-51], wherein the request indicates a first identifier (i.e. SID) [column 26, lines 47-51];
transmitting, to a shared repository that is accessible to the storage nodes within the cluster, an indication of the first identifier (i.e. SID) [column 26, lines 52-54];
receiving, at the storage node (i.e. at the server) and from the shared repository, an indication of a mapping between the first identifier (i.e. SID) and a second identifier, wherein the second identifier is associated with the first identifier (i.e. GID associated with the SID) [column 26, lines 55-59];
transmitting, to the distributed file system, an indication of the file and the second identifier (i.e. one or both of the UID or the GID provided by the shared repository) [column 26, lines 60-62]; and
accessing, by the distributed file system, the file in accordance with the request based at least in part on determining that the second identifier (i.e. GID) is included in a set of identifiers stored at the distributed file system in association with the file [column 27, lines 1-5].
The ‘930 patent does not teach that the request indicates a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device. The ‘930 patent does not teach a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system.
Takayanagi teaches a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device (i.e. first identifier identifying the first operating system) [abstract]. Takayanagi teaches a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system (i.e. second identifier for identifying a second operating system) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent so that the request would have indicated a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device. There would have been a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent by the teaching of Takayanagi because it ensures the software isn’t copied illegally [0004].
As to claim 16, the ‘930 patent discloses an apparatus for data management, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code [column 28, line 7]; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to [column 28, lines 8-9]:
receive a storage node within a cluster of storage nodes (i.e. at a server hosted by a storage node within a cluster of storage nodes in a data management system), a request to access a file stored in a distributed file system, wherein the request indicates a first identifier of a first type (i.e. SID) [column 28, lines 10-15];
transmit, to a shared repository that is accessible to the storage nodes within the cluster, an indication of the first identifier (i.e. SID) [column 28, lines 16-18];
receive, at the storage node (i.e. at the server) and from the shared repository, an indication of a mapping between the first identifier (i.e. SID) and a second identifier of a second type, wherein the second identifier is associated with the first identifier (i.e. GID associated with the SID) [column 28, lines 19-23];
transmit, to the distributed file system, an indication of the file and the second identifier (i.e. one or both of the UID or the GID provided by the shared repository) [column 28, lines 24-26]; and
access, by the distributed file system, the file in accordance with the request based at least in part on determining that the second identifier (i.e. GID) is included in a set of identifiers stored at the distributed file system in association with the file [column 28, lines 32-36].
The ‘930 patent does not teach that the request indicates a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device. The ‘930 patent does not teach a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system.
Takayanagi teaches a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device (i.e. first identifier identifying the first operating system) [abstract]. Takayanagi teaches a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system (i.e. second identifier for identifying a second operating system) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent so that the request would have indicated a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device. There would have been a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent by the teaching of Takayanagi because it ensures the software isn’t copied illegally [0004].
As to claim 20, the ‘930 patent discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for data management, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to:
receive a storage node within a cluster of storage nodes (i.e. at a server hosted by a storage node within a cluster of storage nodes in a data management system), a request to access a file stored in a distributed file system, wherein the request indicates a first identifier of a first type (i.e. SID) [column 29, lines 7-11];
transmit, to a shared repository that is accessible to the storage nodes within the cluster, an indication of the first identifier (i.e. SID) [column 29, lines 12-14];
receive, at the storage node (i.e. at the server) and from the shared repository, an indication of a mapping between the first identifier (i.e. SID) and a second identifier of a second type, wherein the second identifier is associated with the first identifier (i.e. GID associated with the SID) [column 29, lines 15-19];
transmit, to the distributed file system, an indication of the file and the second identifier (i.e. one or both of the UID or the GID provided by the shared repository) [column 29, lines 20-22]; and
access, by the distributed file system, the file in accordance with the request based at least in part on determining that the second identifier (i.e. GID) is included in a set of identifiers stored at the distributed file system in association with the file [column 29, lines 28-32].
The ‘930 patent does not teach that the request indicates a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device. The ‘930 patent does not teach a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system.
Takayanagi teaches a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device (i.e. first identifier identifying the first operating system) [abstract]. Takayanagi teaches a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system (i.e. second identifier for identifying a second operating system) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent so that the request would have indicated a first identifier of a first type associated with a first operating system, the first identifier associated with a computing device. There would have been a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent by the teaching of Takayanagi because it ensures the software isn’t copied illegally [0004].
9. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Lepak et al US 2012/0144122 A1 (hereinafter Lepak).
As to claim 2, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach determining whether an entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier exists within the shared repository.
Lepak teaches determining whether an entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier exists within the shared repository (i.e. determining whether an entry exists in the shared memory system) [0051].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that it would have been determined whether an entry that included the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier existed within the shared repository.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Lepak because it helps increase computing performance [0002].
10. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi), Lepak et al US 2012/0144122 A1 (hereinafter Lepak) and Cucinotta et al US 2016/0026514 A1 (hereinafter Cucinotta).
As to claim 3, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi-Lepak combination does not teach adding, to the shared repository after determining that no entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier exists within the shared repository, a new entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier.
Cucinotta teaches adding, to the shared repository after determining that no entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier exists within the shared repository, a new entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier (i.e. new entry includes a mapping of that value) [0031].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi-Lepak combination so that adding, to the shared repository after determining that no entry that included the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier existed within the shared repository, a new entry that included the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi-Lepak combination by the teaching of Cucinotta because it supports stateful, elastic virtualized components [0002].
11. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi), Lepak et al US 2012/0144122 A1 (hereinafter Lepak) and Marcu et al US 2020/0097216 A1 (hereinafter Marcu).
As to claim 4, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi-Lepak combination does not teach retrieving, from the shared repository, the entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier in response to determining that the entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier exists within the shared repository.
Marcu teaches retrieving, from the shared repository, the entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier in response to determining that the entry that includes the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier exists within the shared repository (i.e. if the mapping table includes an entry corresponding to the particular pointer it is retrieved) [0083].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi-Lepak combination so that the entry that included the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier would have been retrieved from the shared repository in response to determining that the entry that included the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier existed within the shared repository.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi-Lepak combination by the teaching of Marcu because it helps to configure or equip an SSD controller with components to reduce page faults in the host device [0003].
12. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Krebs et al U.S. Patent No. 10,498,883 B1 (hereinafter Krebs).
As to claim 6, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach evaluating permissions associated with the second identifier and operations associated with the request, wherein accessing the file is based at least in part on the permissions authorizing the operations.
Krebs teaches evaluating permissions associated with the second identifier and operations associated with the request, wherein accessing the file is based at least in part on the permissions authorizing the operations (i.e. based on permissions associated with the second identifier) [column 14 line 60 to column 15 line 6].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that evaluating permissions associated with the second identifier and operations associated with the request, wherein accessing the file would have been based at least in part on the permissions authorizing the operations.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Krebs because it helps restrict user access to files [column 14 line 60 to column 15 line 6].
13. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Li et al US 2020/0175074 A1 (hereinafter Li).
As to claim 7, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the request to access the file comprises a write call, a read call, a create call, or any combination thereof.
Li teaches that the request to access the file comprises a write call, a read call, a create call, or any combination thereof (i.e. calls such as create, read and write) [0050].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that the request to access the file would have comprised a write call, a read call, a create call, or any combination thereof.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Li because caching provides faster access to data [0002].
14. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Hilliar et al U.S. Patent No. 9,020,994 B1 (hereinafter Hilliar).
As to claim 9, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach returning, to the computing device associated with the first identifier, a read response that includes data from the file stored within the distributed file system.
Hilliar teaches returning, to the computing device associated with the first identifier, a read response that includes data from the file stored within the distributed file system (i.e. file retrieved using a read request including the object identifier) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that a read response that included data from the file stored within the distributed file system would have been returned to the computing device associated with the first identifier.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Hilliar because it enables the continued use of CAS-dependent applications with the ability to exploit contemporary and future technology developments that become incorporated into the general-purpose storage systems [column 1, lines 52-63].
15. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and D’Amore et al US 2013/0152085 A1 (hereinafter D’Amore).
As to claim 10, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach creating and storing the file at the distributed file system in accordance with the request, wherein the file is stored in association with the second identifier.
D’Amore teaches creating and storing the file at the distributed file system in accordance with the request, wherein the file is stored in association with the second identifier (i.e. store the file associated with the second file identifier in the shared storage) [0062].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that creating and storing the file at the distributed file system would have been done in accordance with the request, wherein the file would have been stored in association with the second identifier.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of D’Amore because it helps to optimize the storage allocation in a virtual desktop environment [0001].
16. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Rathi et al US 2023/0056217 A1 (hereinafter Rathi).
As to claim 11, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein each node within the cluster hosts a respective server that is operable to communicate with the distributed file system and the shared repository.
Rathi teaches that each node within the cluster hosts a respective server that is operable to communicate with the distributed file system and the shared repository (i.e. each node of the cluster hosting server) [0166].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that each node within the cluster hosts a respective server that would have been operable to communicate with the distributed file system and the shared repository.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Rathi because it aids for disaster recovery for distributed file servers [0002].
17. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Bhat et al U.S. Patent No. 12,210,454 B1 (hereinafter Bhat).
As to claim 12, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier is consistent across all the storage nodes within the cluster based at least in part on the shared repository being accessible to all the storage nodes within the cluster.
Bhat teaches that the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier is consistent across all the storage nodes within the cluster based at least in part on the shared repository being accessible to all the storage nodes within the cluster (i.e. maintaining a mapping of data item identifiers across all storage cluster/node locations) [column 3, lines 35-55].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Bhat because it can shield data accessors from such changes and ensure that the data remains accessible using the same protocol and methods throughout the life of the stored data [column 3, lines 35-55].
18. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Bhat et al U.S. Patent No. 12,210,454 B1 (hereinafter Bhat).
As to claim 13, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier is consistent across multiple clusters of storage nodes based at least in part on the shared repository being accessible to all the storage nodes within the multiple clusters.
Bhat teaches that the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier is consistent across multiple clusters of storage nodes based at least in part on the shared repository being accessible to all the storage nodes within the multiple clusters (i.e. maintaining a mapping of data item identifiers across storage cluster/node locations) [column 3, lines 35-55].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier would have been consistent across multiple clusters of storage nodes based at least in part on the shared repository being accessible to all the storage nodes within the multiple clusters.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Bhat because it can shield data accessors from such changes and ensure that the data remains accessible using the same protocol and methods throughout the life of the stored data [column 3, lines 35-55].
19. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Li et al US 2017/0346672 A1 (hereinafter Li).
As to claim 14, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach that the first identifier is associated with a Windows operating system; and the second identifier is associated with a Linux operating system.
Li teaches that the first identifier is associated with a Windows operating system (i.e. identification information may be Windows) and the second identifier is associated with a Linux operating system (i.e. identification information may be Linux) [0064].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that the first identifier was associated with a Windows operating system and the second identifier was associated with a Linux operating system.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Li because it ensures desired user experiences when different display devices are used to browse webpages [0004].
20. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,386,930 B2 (hereinafter the ‘930 patent) in view of Takayanagi et al US 2018/0349915 A1 (hereinafter Takayanagi) and Donnelly et al US 2023/0060837 A1 (hereinafter Donnelly).
As to claim 15, the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the distributed file system comprises a Linux or Unix-based file system.
Donnelly teaches that the distributed file system comprises a Linux or Unix-based file system (i.e. distributed file system operating in a Linux operating environment) [0009].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination so that the distributed file system would have comprised a Linux or Unix-based file system.
It 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 to have modified the ‘930 patent-Takayanagi combination by the teaching of Donnelly because it prohibits the use of null characters [0017].
Allowable Subject Matter
21. Claims 5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 5, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest “calling a plugin in response to issuing a second request indicating the first identifier, wherein receiving the indication of the mapping between the first identifier and the second identifier is based at least in part on calling the plugin”.
As to claim 8, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest “providing, by the storage node, a server message block (SMB) share to the computing device associated with the first identifier, wherein the SMB share is used to ingest snappable data from the computing device or to expose snapshots of snappables to the computing device for restore and live mount operations”.
22. Claims 1-20 allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to the instant application are Thummala et al US 2023/0237170 A1 (hereinafter Thummala) and Aggarwal et al US 2014/0325640 A1 (hereinafter Aggarwal). Thummala is directed towards file server access controls, and more specifically towards a mechanism to create consistent access control lists for local users across different file servers in a distributed file server environment [abstract]. Thummala teaches that based on receiving an access request at a second file server associated with the user based on the external ID, the external ID for the user may be translated into a global ID and used to determine access to the file [abstract]. Aggarwal is directed towards a technique for securely responding to an enumeration request of a data container stored at a location referenced by a junction or mount point within a share served by a storage system [abstract]. Aggarwal teaches access permissions are stored in an access control list including one or more access control entries each associated with security identifier (SID) [0036]. Aggarwal teaches access permissions may have a user identifier (UID) and/or a group identifier (GID) [0036]. However, with respect to independent claim 1 the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “receiving, at the storage node and from the shared repository, an indication of a mapping between the first identifier and a second identifier of a second type associated with a second operating system, wherein the second identifier is associated with the first identifier”, “transmitting, to the distributed file system, an indication of the file and the second identifier”, and “accessing, by the distributed file system, the file in accordance with the request based at least in part on determining that the second identifier is included in a set of identifiers stored at the distributed file system in association with the file”, as recited by independent claims 1, 16 and 20.
Any claims not directly addressed are allowed on the virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Prior Art
23. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Gupta et al US 2024/0111716 A1 directed to data analytics systems for file systems, including distributed file servers hosting file systems [0002].
B. Williams et al US 2021/0287207 A1 directed to systems and methods for transferring a token between mobile computing devices [abstract].
C. Beaverson et al US 2021/0286720 A1 directed to supporting snapshots and clones in a scale out storage system [abstract].
D. Chopra et al US 2020/0349012 A1 directed to a method and system for full restore point creation using incremental backups [abstract].
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights