DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hitz et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0260673 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Hitz teaches:
a method comprising: receiving a first operation targeting an object stored within an object store; (Hitz teaches [Abstract, 0026, 0077] a file system that receives read/write operations targeting a block-organized structure managed via a free-block map, wherein these blocks are objects in the object store.)
evaluating the first operation using a first rule enforced for the object, wherein the first rule allows modifications to unused slots of the object and blocks modifications to in-use slots of the object; (Hitz teaches [0024, 0079, 0089] if a bit is set to a value of 0, this does not necessarily indicate that the block is available for allocation. All the snapshot bits must also be zero for the block to be allocated, and WAFL always writes new data to unallocated blocks on disk. It never overwrites existing data.)
in response to the first operation targeting an unused slot of the object and no in-use slots, executing the first operation to modify the unused slot; (Hitz teaches [0024, 0089, 0129] that WAFL always writes new data to unallocated blocks on disk – the converse/enabling side of the same rule.)
and in response to the first operation targeting at least one in-use slot of the object, blocking the first operation from modifying the at least one in-use slot (Hitz teaches [0024, 0089, 0129] WAFL never overwrites existing data and setting a corresponding bit in the blkmap for each block in the snapshot prevents snapshot blocks from being freed even if the active file no longer uses the snapshot blocks.)
As per Claim 2, Hitz teaches:
determining that a slot is an in-use slot based upon a snapshot, computing device, or file system actively referencing data currently stored within the slot (Hitz teaches [0077] bits that indicate whether the block is part of a corresponding snapshot and indicating whether or not the corresponding block is part of the active file system.)
As per Claim 3, Hitz teaches:
determining that a slot is unused slot based upon data currently stored within the slot not being actively referenced by at least one snapshot, computing device, or file system (Hitz teaches [0078] a block is available as a free block in the file system when all bits are clear.)
Claims 8-10 are the device claims corresponding to method claims 1-3 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claims 15-17 are the media claims corresponding to method claims 1-3 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitz in view of Aron et al. (US Patent No. 10,528,56 B1).
As per Claim 4, Hitz does not explicitly disclose:
evaluating a second operation using a second rule enforced for the object, wherein the second rule routes related operations to a same version of the object determining, using the second rule, that the first operation and the second operation are related operations;
and in response to determining that the second operation read data from a different version of the object than the first operation, trying the second operation to target a version of the object accessed by the first operation
However, Aron teaches:
evaluating a second operation using a second rule enforced for the object, wherein the second rule routes related operations to a same version of the object determining, using the second rule, that the first operation and the second operation are related operations; and in response to determining that the second operation read data from a different version of the object than the first operation, trying the second operation to target a version of the object accessed by the first operation (Aron teaches [column 5, lines 13-37] comparing a current version vector to the last-completed version vector for related operations on a file and, on mismatch, has the system “queue the file operations until other backup systems using the file commit their changes, i.e., wait/retry until the operation can proceed against a consistent version.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Aron into the system of Hitz. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system for ensuring file system consistency in a distributed system by a node. (Aron [column 1, lines 55-57])
As per Claim 6, Hitz teaches:
creating a first version of the object based upon creation of a first snapshot of a file system; and in response to creating a second snapshot of the file system, creating a second version of the object (Hitz teaches [Abstract, 0024, 0127] a snapshot is a read-only copy of an entire file system at a given instant when the snapshot is created, established via a consistency point mechanism where a new consistency point occurs when the fsinfo block is updated by writing a new root inode for the inode file into it – each snapshot/consistency point functions as a version of the file-system tree, with a new one created at each subsequent snapshot.)
As per Claim 7, Hitz teaches:
creating the second version of the object based upon the first rule being used to determine that the first version of the object includes an in-use slot storing data referenced by the first snapshot (Hitz teaches [0137] modifying a data block…can cause several indirect blocks…to be modified as well. This requires blocks…to be written to disk in a new location as well specifically because the block is protected by a snapshot reference bit.)
Claims 11 & 13-14 are the device claims corresponding to method claims 4 & 6-7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claims 18 & 20 are the media claims corresponding to method claims 4 & 6 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claim(s) 5, 12, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitz & Aron in view of Frolund et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0230624 A1).
As per Claim 5 Hitz & Aron do not explicitly disclose:
comparing timestamps between the first operation and the second operation; and determining that the first operation and the second operation targeted different versions of the object based upon a detected timestamp mismatch
However, Frolund teaches:
comparing timestamps between the first operation and the second operation; and determining that the first operation and the second operation targeted different versions of the object based upon a detected timestamp mismatch (Frolund teaches [0007-0008, 0036] comparing timestamps between operations with the ability to detect differences.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Frolund into the systems of Hitz & Aron. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system with the capacity to receive a timestamp from each storage device to determine which version of the data of the data is most current and provide the data to a majority of the storage devices. (Frolund [0009])
Claim 12 is the device claim corresponding to method claim 5, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claims 19 is the media claim corresponding to method claim 5, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights