DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The instant application having Application Number 19/278,349 filed on July 23, 2025 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 4 independent claims and 16 dependent claims, all of which are presented for examination by the examiner.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support are shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Continuation Statement
19278349 filed 07/23/2025 is a Continuation of 18650489, filed on 04/30/2024, now U.S. Patent #12373396. 18/650,489 is a Continuation of 17/955,428, filed on 09/28/2022, now U.S. Patent #12,032,530, is a continuation of 16/524,542, filed on 09/28/2022, now U.S. Patent #11,487,715.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated September 24, 2025 is/are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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 terminal 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent 12,032,530 and 12,373,396. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Instant Application No. 19/278,349
Patent No. 12,032,530
Patent No. 12,373,396
1. A method comprising:
for data that is received for storage within a first tier of cloud storage of a cloud-based storage system, generating recovery information that is sufficient to enable recovery of the data; and
enabling recovery of a portion of the data based at least in part on recovery of another portion of the data using the recovery information.
1. A method comprising:
receiving data for storage within a first tier of cloud storage of a cloud-based storage system;
generating self-describing information for recoverability of the data before storing the data in a second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system; storing the self-describing information on a number of storage elements that is sufficient for recovery of the data; and
storing, within the second tier, both the data and the self-describing information for recoverability of the data.
1. A method comprising:
generating, for data received for storage within a first tier of cloud storage of a cloud-based storage system, self-describing information for the data that is sufficient for recovery of the data; and
storing, within a second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system, the self-describing information that is sufficient for recovery of the data, wherein the self-describing information is stored on a number of storage elements that is sufficient for recovery of the data.
Table 1
As exemplarily illustrated in Table 1 above, both are directed to cloud-based data storage and recovery system with tiered storage management; see claim language of both for detail. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of patent 12,373,396 and claims 1-20 of patent 12,032,530 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/278,349 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. It has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson (CCPA), 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Please also see MPEP § 804.
Independent claims 13 and 17 are substantially encompass the method recited in claim 1 and are also being rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,032,530 and US patent 12,032,530.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pangal et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0167221 A1, ‘Pangal’, hereafter) in view of Hayasaka et al. (WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2017145375 A1, ‘Hayasaka’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1. Pangal teaches a method comprising:
for data that is received for storage within a first tier of cloud storage of a cloud-based storage system (the cloud storage array organizes data in different data tiers. The first tier is the fast linear storage layer and the second layer is the slightly slower deduplicated layer, Pangal [0124]. Data chunks, data slices, Pangal [0118-0119]);
Pangal does not teach
generating recovery information that is sufficient to enable recovery of the data; and
enabling recovery of a portion of the data based at least in part on recovery of another portion of the data using the recovery information.
However, Arevalo teaches
generating recovery information that is sufficient to enable recovery of the data; and
enabling recovery of a portion of the data based at least in part on recovery of another portion of the data using the recovery information (The data division/reconstruction program generates a host data block of a prescribed size from the received data. If necessary, dummy data is added. The redundant data generation/loss data recovery program generates redundant data from the generated host data block. The data division/reconstruction program distributes the generated data blocks to the determined plural storage nodes via the network in a dispersed manner. Along with the host data block, address information including its object ID and offset is transferred. Upon receiving the data block transferred in the distributed arrangement, the storage node returns a response and further stores the received data in the auxiliary storage device. Thereafter, the data division/reconstruction program that received the data from the host returns a completion response to the host via the network, Hayasaka, page 8, lines 30-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Pangal and Hayasaka before him/her, to modify Pangal with the teaching of Hayasaka’s storage system including a plurality of storage nodes connected via a network. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of achieving both high reliability and high performance in the storage system advantageously improving performance by high-reliability data relocation in a distributed storage system (Hayasaka, Abstract, page 2, lines 53-54 and page 3, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 3. Pangal as modified teaches, further comprising distributing the recovery information on a number of storage elements of the cloud-based storage system (Pangal [0069], [0075], [0079-0080], [0092]).
Regarding claim 4. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the recovery information includes information about distribution of the data in the cloud-based storage system and redundancy information (Pangal [0069], [0075], [0079-0080], [0092]).
Regarding claim 6. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the first tier of cloud storage includes a plurality of cloud computing instances (Pangal [0079-0081], [0085], [0090], [0095]).
Regarding claim 11. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the first tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system stores a subset of a volume of data (Pangal [0120-0124]).
Regarding claim 12. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the data are part of a dataset, and wherein the cloud- based storage system synchronously replicates the dataset with one or more other storage systems (Pangal [0124]).
Regarding claim 13. Pangal teaches a cloud-based storage system within a cloud computing environment, the cloud-based storage system including:
one or more cloud computing instances providing a first tier of cloud storage; a second tier of cloud storage (the cloud storage array organizes data in different data tiers. The first tier is the fast linear storage layer and the second layer is the slightly slower deduplicated layer, Pangal [0124]); and
one or more storage controller applications, each storage controller application executing in a cloud computing instance, wherein the one or more storage controllers (cloud based system, controller units, Pangal [0053-0057]) are configured to:
although claim 13 directed to a system, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The method steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the system recited in claim 13. Therefore; claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17. Pangal teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction which, when executed (machine-readable medium 122 on which is stored one or more sets of computer instructions and data structures … The instructions 124 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 104 and/or within a cache memory 103 associated with the processor 102. The main memory 104 and the cache memory 103 associated with the processor 102 also constitute machine-readable media, Pangal [0033], [0035]), cause a processing device to:
although claim 17 directed to a medium, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The method steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the medium recited in claim 17. Therefore; claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claims 2, 5, 7-10, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pangal et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0167221 A1, ‘Pangal’, hereafter) in view of Hayasaka et al. (WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2017145375 A1, ‘Hayasaka’, hereafter) and further in view of Arevalo et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0019476 A1, ‘Arevalo’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 2. Pangal and Hayasaka do not teach, further comprising removing the recovery information from the second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system.
However, Arevalo teaches further comprising removing the recovery information from the second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system (Arevalo [0042], [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Pangal, Hayasaka and Arevalo before him/her, to further modify Pangal with the teaching of Arevalo’s microservices systems and methods. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of accelerated Write performance in a microservices deduplication system having a master node and a worker node, where the worker node receives and writes updates to data similarity groups to a cache and to a primary write-ahead log (Arevalo, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5. Pangal as modified teaches, generating recovery information that is sufficient for recovery of the data (Arevalo [0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 7. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the first tier of cloud storage is block-level storage (Arevalo [0024], [0030], [0067]).
Regarding claim 8. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the second tier of cloud storage includes an object storage (Arevalo [0030]).
Regarding claim 9. Pangal as modified teaches storing the data in the second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage (Arevalo [0027-0030], [0069]).
Regarding claim 10. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the first tier of cloud storage includes a level of storage granularity that is block-level, and wherein storing the data includes transferring the data from block-level storage in the first tier of cloud storage to object storage in the second tier of cloud storage (Pangal [0079-0081], [0085], [0090], [0095]).
Regarding claim 14. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the one or more storage controllers are further configured to remove the recovery information from the second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system (Arevalo [0027-0028], [0042], [0069]).
Regarding claim 15. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the recovery information is removed from the second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system after the data has been written to the second tier of cloud storage of the cloud-based storage system (Arevalo [0045], [0065-0069]).
Regarding claim 16. Pangal as modified teaches, wherein the one or more storage controllers are further configured to generate recovery information that is sufficient for recovery of the data (Arevalo [0067], [0069]).
Regarding claims 18-20, the system steps of claims 14-16 substantially encompass the medium recited in claims 18-20. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 14-16 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shetty et al. (US Patent No. 9,135,269 B2) discloses a method for storing objects in an object storage system includes the steps of establishing a network connection with a client over an inter-network, receiving an upload request indicating an object to be uploaded by the client, selecting at least two storage nodes on which the object will be stored, receiving the object from the client via the network connection, and streaming the object to each of the selected storage nodes such that the object is stored on each of the selected storage nodes. The method can also include writing an object record associating the object and the selected storage nodes to a shard of an object database and generating a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID). The UUID indicates the shard and the object ID of the object record, such that the object record can be quickly retrieved. Object storage infrastructures are also disclosed.
Karmarkar et al. (US Patent No. 10,534,674 B1) discloses a deduplicated microservices-based storage system and method running in a cloud includes frontend and backend microservice nodes that process requests from a plurality of clients and interface with a master node and one or more worker nodes connected as a network for deduplicating, storing and retrieving data from object storage, a worker node receives queries and fingerprints for data segments of a data similarity group to be deduplicated, obtains and returns the similarity group from its cache or from object storage using a key. The system compares the received fingerprints to stored fingerprints to determine non-duplicates for deduplication. The worker node updates similarity groups in its cache and in a write-ahead log with a reference to a compression region of non-duplicate segments, and periodically writes modified objects from its cache to object storage.
Brandt et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0019330 A1) discloses a method of processing data similarity groups, a combined read/write cache comprises an in-memory data structure having a fixed allocation of physical memory that includes a write portion comprising memory allocated to write entries and a read portion comprising memory allocated to read entries. Similarity group entries are written into the cache using keys based upon an identifier of a similarity group, and similarity group entries are read from the cache using keys based upon both similarity group and subgroup identifiers. The sizes of memory allocated to the write portion and to the read portion are dynamically varied within the fixed memory allocation based upon demand while maintaining the fixed memory allocation constant.
Carr et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0168228 A1) discloses a storage management method for use in a storage area network is provided. The storage area network comprises a plurality of host data processors coupled to a virtualization engine, which is coupled to a plurality of physical storage media. Each physical storage media is assigned a tier level. The method comprises storing a threshold storage access value associated with each tier level, presenting virtual disk(s) to a host data processor and receiving I/O requests to the virtual disk from the host data processor. Additionally, metadata is stored which identifies the tier level of the physical storage to which the block corresponds, mappings between the block and blocks of a virtual disk, and an access rate to the data. The access value is periodically compared to at least one threshold rate associated with its tier level. Depending on the result, storage block(s) may be marked for migration to another tier level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights