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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/329,761 filed on 09/16/2025.
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 7 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2024/0427735 A1, hereinafter “Yadav”) in view of Kaplingat et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0103555 A1, hereinafter “Kaplingat”).
Regarding claim 1, Yadav teaches a computer system comprising:
a search server (Yadav Fig. 1, i.e., a host computing device 102(1)); and
a plurality of file storages that manage a file system (Yadav Fig. 1, i.e., data storage devices 110(1)-110(n), volumes 118(1)-118(n), and ¶0026, i.e., “The aggregates in this example include volumes 118(1)-118(n), which are virtual data stores or storage objects that define an arrangement of storage and one or more filesystems within the clustered network environment 100”), wherein the search server is configured to execute:
accepting a search request for a file to be searched (Yadav ¶0047);
transmitting a file storage search request corresponding to the search request to the file storage (Yadav ¶0051);
receiving a search result corresponding to the file storage search request from the file storage (Yadav ¶0052); and
returning the search result to a request source of the search request (Yadav ¶0052), and
Yadav fails to explicitly teach the file storage is configured to execute:
storing a first metadata file that stores metadata regarding a file in a snapshot of a file system managed by the file storage;
receiving the file storage search request from the search server;
searching for a file from the first metadata file based on the file storage search request; and
returning a search result obtained by the searching to the search server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kaplingat teaches the file storage is configured to execute:
storing a first metadata file that stores metadata regarding a file in a snapshot of a file system managed by the file storage (Kaplingat ¶0038);
receiving the file storage search request from the search server (Kaplingat ¶0094);
searching for a file from the first metadata file based on the file storage search request (Kaplingat ¶0096); and
returning a search result obtained by the searching to the search server (Kaplingat ¶0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yadav by incorporating the teachings of Kaplingat. The motivation would be to provide a lightweight, elegant, and highly scalable catalog that more efficiently facilitates full path global file search and restore functionality with reduced resource utilization (Kaplingat Abstract).
As to claim 3, Yadav as modified by Kaplingat also teaches the computer system according to claim 1, wherein the file storage is configured to execute:
creating a second metadata file that stores metadata related to an operation of a file after acquisition of a previous snapshot in the file system (Kaplingat ¶0057); and
searching for a file from the first metadata file and the second metadata file when accepting the file storage search request (Kaplingat ¶¶0094-0095).
As to claim 4, Yadav as modified by Kaplingat also teaches the computer system according to claim 3, wherein the file storage is configured to execute:
storing a log of a file I/O operation on the file system (Kaplingat ¶0057, i.e., storing file create/modify and/or delete events); and
creating the second metadata file based on the log (Kaplingat ¶0057).
As to claim 5, Yadav as modified by Kaplingat also teaches the computer system according to claim 1, wherein the search server is configured to execute:
converting the search request into a single-file search request for one or more single metadata files in the file storage (Yadav ¶¶0049-0050); and
transmitting the single-file search request as the file storage search request to a file storage having a corresponding metadata file (Yadav ¶0051), and the file storage is configured to execute:
receiving the single-file search request (Yadav ¶0052); and
searching for a file from a corresponding metadata file according to the single-file search request (Yadav ¶0052).
Regarding claim 6, Yadav teaches a file storage that manages a file system, the file storage comprising:
a storage device (Yadav Fig. 1, i.e., a data storage device 110(1)); and
a processor (Yadav Fig. 1, i.e., a host computing device 102(1)),
receiving a file storage search request from a search server (Yadav ¶0047);
searching for a file from the first metadata file based on the file storage search request (Yadav ¶0052); and
returning a search result obtained by the searching to the search server (Yadav ¶0052).
Yadav fails to explicitly teach the storage device stores a first metadata file that stores metadata regarding a file in a snapshot of a file system managed by the file storage. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kaplingat teaches the storage device stores a first metadata file that stores metadata regarding a file in a snapshot of a file system managed by the file storage (Kaplingat ¶0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yadav by incorporating the teachings of Kaplingat. The motivation would be to provide a lightweight, elegant, and highly scalable catalog that more efficiently facilitates full path global file search and restore functionality with reduced resource utilization (Kaplingat Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Yadav teaches a computer system comprising:
a search server (Yadav Fig. 1, i.e., a host computing device 102(1)); and
a plurality of file storages that manage a file system (Yadav Fig. 1, i.e., data storage devices 110(1)-110(n), volumes 118(1)-118(n), and ¶0026, i.e., “The aggregates in this example include volumes 118(1)-118(n), which are virtual data stores or storage objects that define an arrangement of storage and one or more filesystems within the clustered network environment 100”),
the search server is configured to execute:
receiving the metadata from the file storage to reflect the metadata in a metadata database (Yadav ¶0091);
receiving a search request for a file to be searched (Yadav ¶0092);
searching for a file corresponding to the search request by using the metadata database (Yadav ¶0093); and
returning a search result obtained by the searching to a request source of the search request (Yadav ¶0093).
Yadav fails to explicitly teach the file storage is configured to execute: sequentially transmitting metadata related to a file operated in a file system managed by the file storage to the search server. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kaplingat teaches the file storage is configured to execute: sequentially transmitting metadata related to a file operated in a file system managed by the file storage to the search server (Kaplingat ¶0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yadav by incorporating the teachings of Kaplingat. The motivation would be to provide a lightweight, elegant, and highly scalable catalog that more efficiently facilitates full path global file search and restore functionality with reduced resource utilization (Kaplingat Abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav in view of Kaplingat, and further in view of Brady et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,751,523 B2, hereinafter “Brady”).
As to claim 2, Yadav as modified by Kaplingat teaches the computer system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the file storage creates the first metadata file as a difference from a first metadata file of a previous snapshot. However, in the same field of endeavor, Brady teaches the file storage creates the first metadata file as a difference from a first metadata file of a previous snapshot (Brady Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yadav and Kaplingat by incorporating the teachings of Brady. The motivation would be to provide an efficient search strategy that consumes significant less and an resources between two different snapshots (Brady Col 3 Ln 32-44).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
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 on (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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights