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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, line 3, recites “that is usable”. It is suggested to use active voice instead of passive voice.
Similar problem exists in claims 8 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “A method comprising: based on an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, generating a metadata update to a metadata representation, of the dataset, that is usable with a plurality of replication types and includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset; and using the metadata update, replicating the update to the dataset with a different type of replication”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “near-synchronous replication and the different type of replication comprises periodic replication”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the metadata update comprises a logical extent update that references stored data by content identifier”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the metadata representation comprises a directed acyclic graph of metadata nodes associated with the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “wherein replicating the update using the different type of replication is triggered in response to a failure of the first type of replication to meet a recovery point objective”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: a memory storing program instructions; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, configured to execute the program instructions to: based on an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, generate a metadata update to a metadata representation, of the dataset, that is usable with a plurality of replication types and includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset; and use the metadata update to replicate the update to the dataset with a different type of replication”.
The limitations of “A
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “system”, “memory” and “processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “memory” and “processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “system”, “memory” and “processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “memory” and “processor”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the first type of replication comprises near-synchronous replication and the different type of replication comprises periodic replication”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the metadata update comprises a logical extent update that references stored data by content identifier”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the metadata representation comprises a directed acyclic graph of metadata nodes associated with the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “replicate the update using the different type of replication in response to a failure of the first type of replication to meet a recovery point objective”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a system to perform operations comprising: based on an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, generating a metadata update to a metadata representation, of the dataset, that is usable with a plurality of replication types and includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset; and using the metadata update, replicating the update to the dataset with a different type of replication”.
The limitations of “operations comprising: based on an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, generating a metadata update to a metadata representation, of the dataset, that is usable with a plurality of replication types and includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset; and using the metadata update, replicating the update to the dataset with a different type of replication”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “processor” and “system” to perform the claimed steps. The “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “processor” and “system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “processor” and “system” to perform the claimed steps. The “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “processor” and “system”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the first type of replication comprises near-synchronous replication and the different type of replication comprises periodic replication”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the metadata update comprises a logical extent update that references stored data by content identifier”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the metadata representation comprises a directed acyclic graph of metadata nodes associated with the dataset”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,373,126.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions are obvious variants. Claim 1 of the Instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Patent 12,373,126 as shown in comparison table below.
Instant Application
Patent 12,373,126
A method comprising:
based on an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, generating a metadata update to a metadata representation, of the dataset, that is usable with a plurality of replication types and includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset; and
using the metadata update, replicating the update to the dataset with a different type of replication.
1. A method comprising:
receiving an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, the dataset being represented by a metadata representation that is used when replicating the dataset with the first type of replication or with a second type of replication;
generating, based on the received update to the dataset, an update to the metadata representation of the dataset, the metadata representation including one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset; and
using the update to the metadata representation that was generated during replication of the dataset with the first type of replication, replicating the update a with the second type of replication.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the additional elements “receiving an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, the dataset being represented by a metadata representation that is used when replicating the dataset with the first type of replication or with a second type of replication” of claims 1 of Patent 12,373,126 to arrive at the claim 1 of the Instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,937,414) in view of Erdogan et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0311421).
Referring to claim 1, Souder et al. teaches a method comprising:
based on an update to a dataset that is being replicated with a first type of replication, generating a metadata update to a metadata representation, of the dataset, that is usable with a plurality of replication types and includes portions of the dataset (("replication metadata") that indicates the destination sites for each body of data to be replicated…replication metadata at each site is augmented to further include data to indicate the propagation mode (e.g. asynchronous or synchronous) to be used to propagate changes made to a particular body of data to each destination site, see Souder et al., Col. 5, lines 42-48, a body of data (Tl), see Souder et al., Col. 7, line 29); and
using the metadata update, replicating the update to the dataset with a different type of replication (a single trigger may include calls to both routines for asynchronously propagating changes and routines for synchronously propagating changes, see Souder et al., Col. 6, lines 31-33, in response to a modification to T1 at S2, the inline trigger is passed parameters that include values which indicate (1) the change made to T1 and (2) the replication metadata that indicates that the changes should be propagated asynchronously to S1 and synchronously to S2, see Souder et al., Col. 6, lines 45-50). However, Souder et al. does not explicitly
includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset.
Erdogan et al. teaches
includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset (the data associated with the database table update is stored in the append-only log file in a logical representation, see Erdogan et al., Para. 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Souder et al., to have includes one or more logical representations of portions of the dataset, as taught by Erdogan et al., to improve modularity, reliability, availability and scalability properties (Erdogan et al., Para. 7).
As to claim 2, Souder et al. teaches the first type of replication comprises near-synchronous replication and the different type of replication comprises periodic replication (a single trigger may include calls to both routines for asynchronously propagating changes and routines for synchronously propagating changes, see Souder et al., Col. 6, lines 31-33, periodically transmitting change information from the second site to the first site, see Souder et al., Col. 10, lines 1-2). As to claim 3, Souder et al. as modified teaches a logical extent update that references stored data by content identifier (data is specified in a logical manner (e.g., a table name), see Erdogan et al., Para. 66). Referring to claim 8, Souder et al. teaches a system comprising: a memory (memory, see Souder et al., Col. 7, line 39) storing program instructions; and a processor (processor, see Souder et al., Col. 3, line 37), operatively coupled to the memory, configured to execute the program instructions to, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Referring to claim 15, Souder et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory, see Souder et al., Col. 7, line 39) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (processor, see Souder et al., Col. 3, line 37), cause a system to perform operations comprising, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 3 rejection.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,937,414) in view of Erdogan et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0311421) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 above, and in further view of Lazier et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,802,746).
As to claim 4, Souder et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the metadata representation comprises a directed acyclic graph of metadata nodes associated with the dataset.
However, Lazier et al. teaches the metadata representation comprises a directed acyclic graph of metadata nodes associated with the dataset (the version metadata management service can store metadata about a version of a data object that includes the previous version of the data object and, for example, a checksum of that previous version. This metadata can be used by other services to validate that a copy or move of the data object was completed, see Lazier et al., Col. 5, Lines 31-36, a version metadata management service illustrated in FIG. 4 is a directed acyclic graph ("DAG") where the nodes of the DAG represent versions of the data object, see Lazier et al., Col. 17, Lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Souder et al. as modified, to have the metadata representation comprises a directed acyclic graph of metadata nodes associated with the dataset, as taught by Lazier et al., to enable better performance relative to other storage services (Lazier et al., Col. 7, lines 16-17).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,937,414) in view of Erdogan et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0311421) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 above, and in further view of Li et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0226035).
As to claim 5, Souder et al. as modified does not explicitly the metadata update is generated based on a checkpoint comprising a set of updates that were completed at a source data repository.
However, Li et al. teaches the metadata update is generated based on a checkpoint comprising a set of updates that were completed at a source data repository (commits a checkpoint, … , the most recent checkpoint is a point-in-time checkpoint comprising of changes to the data and metadata of the data object since the second most recent checkpoint, see Li et al., Para. 57, data objects of the storage system 104, see Li et al., Para. 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Souder et al. as modified, to have the metadata update is generated based on a checkpoint comprising a set of updates that were completed at a source data repository, as taught by Li et al., to improve space efficiency (Li et al., Para. 33).
As to claim 6, Souder et al. as modified teaches applying the checkpoint at a target data repository to form a tracking volume consistent with the dataset at the source data repository (This framework includes quiescing a data object to be recovered from a crash or error. As used herein, "quiescing" generally refers to a process for pausing or altering a data object to achieve a consistent state in preparation for a recovery, see Li et al., Para. 16, uses the most recently committed checkpoint for recovering the data object, see Li et al., Para. 57).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 6 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 5 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 6 rejection.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,937,414) in view of Erdogan et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0311421) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10 and 16-17 above, and in further view of Fiske et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0227431).
As to claim 7, Souder et al. as modified does not explicitly teach replicating the update using the different type of replication is triggered in response to a failure of the first type of replication to meet a recovery point objective.
However, Fiske et al. teaches replicating the update using the different type of replication is triggered in response to a failure of the first type of replication to meet a recovery point objective (reducing RPO is to change the replication method from asynchronous to synchronous, see Fiske et al., Para. 6. In addition to while said first site is not operational after a failure at said first site, causing all new changes to said body of data to be initially made at said second site, see Souder et al., Col. 9, lines 55-57, a single trigger may include calls to both routines for asynchronously propagating changes and routines for synchronously propagating changes, see Souder et al., Col. 6, lines 31-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Souder et al. as modified, to have replicating the update using the different type of replication is triggered in response to a failure of the first type of replication to meet a recovery point objective, as taught by Fiske et al., to have reliably and efficiently storing data to the storage devices (Fiske et al., Para. 31).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 7 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, 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 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights