UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/823,922
`
`06/25/2010
`
`Arthur J. Beaverson
`
`S044—7000US1
`
`8857
`
`Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP
`"90
`2””
`100 Cambridge Street
`WALDRON, SCOTT A
`Suite 2101
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NI HVIBER
`BOSTON, MA 02114 “
`2155
`
`02/22/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on aboVe—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`maria.bien-aime@noVakdruce.com
`
`info @ rhoiplaW.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`SPRINGPATH
`SPRINGPATH
`EXHIBIT 1010
`1 O
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`App|icant(s)
`
`12/823,922
`
`Examiner
`Scott A. Waldron
`
`BEAVERSON ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`2155
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`—
`— Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IXl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 18 December 2012.
`
`2a)IXI This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:I This action is non—final.
`
`3)I:l An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)I:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZl Claim(s) 13-22 29-33 and 42-63 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:l Claim(s) j is/are allowed.
`
`7)IXl Claim(s 13-22 29-33 and 42-63 is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:l Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`9)I:l Claim(s) _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`httn://www.usntq.ciov/patents./init events/'
`h/'iPdex.'s or send an inquiry to P:-7’Hfeedback
`us to.cov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)IZl The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 22 July 2010 is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)IZI objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:l None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. j.
`
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) Q Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date j.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`3) El Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. j
`4) D Other: j.
`
`Office Action Summary
`2/25
`2/25
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130214
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`ACTION
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`This action is in response to Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on
`
`12/18/2012, which are in response to the Office Action mailed 08/30/2012. Applicants’
`
`arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS
`
`ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
`
`Applicants’ amendments, filed 12/18/2012, canceled claims 1-12, 23-28 & 34-41.
`
`Claims 42-63 were added. Claims 13, 14, 18, 22, 29 & 32 were amended. Therefore,
`
`claims 13-22, 29-33 & 42-63 are pending.
`
`The examiner notes that claim 13’s status should state "Currently Amended”.
`
`The objections to the drawings, specification and claims have been withdrawn
`
`due to Applicants’ amendments. The examiner’s citations to the specification refer to
`
`the “clean version of substitute specification” filed 12/18/2012.
`
`The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, have been
`
`withdrawn due to Applicants’ amendments.
`
`The rejection of claims 1-12, 34 & 36-41 under 35 USC § 101 have been
`
`withdrawn due to Applicants’ cancelation of these claims. However, rejected claim 33
`
`remains in its original form and the rejection is maintained.
`
`3/25
`3/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`The replacement sheet drawings, filed 07/22/2010, are objected as follows:
`
`Drawings
`
`The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4)
`
`because reference characters "21c" and "26" have both been used to designate the
`
`same part. This occurs in at least Figures 9 & 11-15A. Also, reference characters
`
`"21 b" and "26" have both been used to designate the same part in at least Figure 16A.
`
`Applicants are requested to review the drawings and specification for other
`
`discrepancies when filing replacement sheets.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in
`
`reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended
`
`replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate
`
`prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet
`
`submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as
`
`either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the
`
`changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of
`
`any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings
`
`will not be held in abeyance.
`
`The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4)
`
`because reference character “20” has been used to designate both an insert function
`
`4/25
`4/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`and “To Insert” in at least Figure 9. Applicants are requested to review the drawings
`
`and specification for other discrepancies when filing replacement sheets.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in
`
`reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended
`
`replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate
`
`prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet
`
`submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as
`
`either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the
`
`changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of
`
`any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings
`
`will not be held in abeyance.
`
`The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5)
`
`because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the
`
`description: 21, 21c, 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d, 54, 116a, 116b, 202, 150, and 166b.
`
`Applicants are requested to review the drawings and specification for other
`
`discrepancies when filing replacement sheets.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d), or amendment to
`
`the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with
`
`37 CFR 1.121 (b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the
`
`application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures
`
`appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being
`
`5/25
`5/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be
`
`labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.1 21 (d).
`
`If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be
`
`notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The
`
`objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
`
`The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5)
`
`because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the
`
`description: 75, 79, 95, 99, 55, 59, 116, 120, and 167b. Applicants are requested to
`
`review the drawings and specification for other discrepancies when filing replacement
`
`sheets.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in
`
`reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended
`
`replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate
`
`prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet
`
`submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as
`
`either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the
`
`changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of
`
`any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings
`
`will not be held in abeyance.
`
`6/25
`6/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Title
`
`The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
`
`indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Abstract
`
`Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
`
`A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent
`and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
`If the
`patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the
`abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure.
`If the patent is in the nature of an
`improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should
`include the technical disclosure of the improvement.
`In certain patents, particularly
`those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use
`thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use
`thereof.
`If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the
`abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
`
`The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of
`the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
`
`Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
`(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
`(2) if an article, its method of making;
`(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
`(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
`(5) if a process, the steps.
`
`Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
`
`Specification
`
`The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
`
`determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is
`
`7/25
`7/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
`
`specification.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 13, 29, 58 & 62 are objected to because of the following
`
`informalities:
`
`Regarding claim 13, line 7 recites “and/or”. The use of “and/or” results in the
`
`scope of the claim being unclear. For the purposes of examination it will be assumed to
`
`be an “or”.
`
`Regarding claim 13, line 14 recites “directory objects comprising a mapping of
`
`inode numbers and file names”. Because each directory object of the multiple objects
`
`would contain a mapping, it appears this line should recite “directory objects, each
`
`directory object comprising a mapping of inode numbers and file names”.
`
`Regarding claim 29, line 7 recites “and/or”. The use of “and/or” results in the
`
`scope of the claim being unclear. For the purposes of examination it will be assumed to
`
`be an “or”.
`
`Regarding claim 29, lines 6-7 recite “each file object comprising a mapping of
`
`object fingerprints for data objects and/or metadata objects of the file”. For consistency
`
`8/25
`8/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`with claim 13 and proper antecedent basis, it appears this should recite “each file object
`
`comprising a mapping of object fingerprints for th_e data objects and/or metadata objects
`
`of the file”.
`
`Regarding claim 29, lines 11-12 recite “a mapping of inode numbers”. For
`
`consistency with claim 13, it appears this should recite “a mapping of file system inode
`
`numbers”.
`
`Regarding claim 29, line 14 recites “directory objects comprising a mapping of
`
`inode numbers and file names”. Because each directory object of the multiple objects
`
`would contain a mapping, it appears this line should recite “directory objects, each
`
`directory object comprising a mapping of inode numbers and file names”.
`
`Regarding claim 58, line 2 recites “l/O”. The use of an acronym should be
`
`spelled out completely first in the claims to avoid confusion as to intended meaning.
`
`Regarding claim 62, line 2 recites “and/or”. The use of “and/or” results in the
`
`scope of the claim being unclear. For the purposes of examination it will be assumed to
`
`be an “or”.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`9/25
`9/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`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.
`
`Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Regarding claim 33 (“computer program product”), the examiner found support in
`
`the specification at paragraph [176], which describes “Embodiments of the invention can
`
`be implemented as a computer program product, i.e., a computer program tangibly
`
`embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine readable storage device or in a
`
`propagated signal, for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing
`
`apparatus, e.g., a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple computers.” As
`
`currently claimed, the claim is capable of being implemented as a propagated signal,
`
`and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`(B) CONCLUSlON.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
`particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
`inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre—AlA), second paragraph:
`
`10/25
`10/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
`invenflon.
`
`Claims 13-22, 29-33 & 42-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
`
`112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
`
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint
`
`inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Independent claims 13 & 29 recite “an inode map object” and “directory objects”.
`
`The examiner notes that the inode map object appears different from the recites file
`
`objects, data objects, and metadata objects, because of the limitation "each object
`
`having a globally unique object fingerprint derived from the content of the object and
`
`used to access the object store". Specifically, the inode map object does not appear to
`
`have its own object fingerprint because it is introduced after the “each object having
`
`language, and because the inode map object is not used to directly access the object
`
`store.
`
`In other words, the inode map object does not appear to have the claim-defined
`
`properties of an object. The same applies to the directory objects.
`
`Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “inode map object” and “directory
`
`objects”.
`
`In one possibility, it appears Applicants may have intended claims 13 (line 4)
`
`and 29 (lines 3-4) to recite “each file, data, and metadata object having. .
`
`. which
`
`would exclude the inode map object and the “directory objects” from having the
`
`properties of an “object” as defined by the claims.
`
`11/25
`11/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Dependent claims 14-22, 30-33 & 42-63 are rejected for the same reasons as
`
`claims 13 & 29.
`
`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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in
`the United States.
`
`Claims 13-17, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33, 44, 47, 52, 56, 60, 62 & 63 are rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by the article by Steve Best & Dave
`
`Kleikamp entitled “JFS Layout: How the Journaled File System Handles the On-
`
`Disk Layout” (published May 2000, hereinafter “Best”).
`
`Regarding independent claims 13 & 29, Best discloses
`
`A computer file system for naming and storing of files on one or more computer
`
`storage devices [Best, page 1, Abstract], the system comprising:
`
`a namespace file system accessing an object store [Best, page 1, “Partitions”
`
`section],
`
`the object store holding files, data and metadata as objects [Best, page 6,
`
`“modes” section, first paragraph],
`
`12/25
`12/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`each object having a globally unique object fingerprint derived from the
`
`content of the object and used to access the object store [Best, page 6, “modes”
`
`section, first two paragraphs, using length and address is a content-based technique to
`
`uniquely address objects comprised of extents],
`
`wherein:
`
`each file object comprising a mapping of object fingerprints for the data
`
`objects and/or metadata objects of the file [Best, page 5, “Extents” section] and
`
`the file object having its own object fingerprint derived from the fingerprints
`
`of the objects in the file [Best, page 5, “Extents, inodes, B+ trees” section], and
`
`wherein the object store further includes:
`
`an inode map object comprising a mapping of file system inode
`
`numbers and object fingerprints enabling the inode numbers to stay constant
`
`while the object fingerprints change as the file content changes [Best, page 6,
`
`“modes” section, first bullet point; also page 7, second paragraph]; and
`
`directory objects comprising a mapping of inode numbers and file
`
`names [Best, page 23, “Directory” section, first paragraph].
`
`Regarding claim 14, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, wherein: object
`
`references are mapped by the object fingerprints [Best, page 5, “Extents, inodes, B+
`
`trees” section].
`
`13/25
`13/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Regarding claim 15, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, wherein: the file
`
`object mapping comprises a linear list, a tree structure or an indirection table [Best,
`
`page 6, second paragraph].
`
`Regarding claim 16, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, wherein: the file
`
`objects include a root object having its own object fingerprint derived from all of the
`
`objects in the file system such that every object in the file system is accessible through
`
`the root object [Best, page 3, first bullet point, “primary aggregate superblock’].
`
`Regarding claim 17, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, wherein: the
`
`namespace file system is provided as a layer in a storage stack between a virtual file
`
`system layer and a block storage abstraction layer [Best, page 1, “Aggregates” section].
`
`Regarding claim 21, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, wherein: the
`
`object size is variable [Best, page 5, “Extents” section].
`
`Regarding claim 22, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, wherein: the file
`
`system is a POSIX standard compliant file system [Best, page 6, “modes” section].
`
`Regarding claim 30, Best discloses the method of claim 29, comprising:
`
`maintaining a location index for mapping object fingerprints and physical locations of the
`
`objects [Best, page 7, second paragraph].
`
`14/25
`14/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Regarding claim 33, Best discloses a computer program product comprising
`
`program code means which, when executed by a process, performs the steps of
`
`method claim 29 [Best, page 1, Abstract].
`
`Regarding claim 44, Best discloses the file system of claim 16, wherein a change
`
`of content of any file system object changes the root object and tracking changes in the
`
`root object provides a history of file system activity.
`
`Regarding claim 47, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, including: a stack
`
`wherein the object store comprises a lower portion of the stack [Best, page 3, first bullet
`
`point, “primary aggregate superblock’] and the file system comprises an upper portion
`
`of the stack [Best, page 3, eighth bullet point].
`
`Regarding claim 52, Best discloses the method of claim 29, including:
`
`publishing the inode map fingerprint to another object store [Best, page 3, third bullet
`
`point, “secondary aggregate inode table’].
`
`Regarding claim 56, Best discloses the method of claim 29, including:
`
`maintaining in the object store a location index of object names and physical object
`
`locations [Best, page 7, second paragraph].
`
`15/25
`15/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Regarding claim 60, Best discloses the method of claim 29, wherein:
`
`the file object mapping is indexed by an offset into the content of the file, and comprises
`
`a linear list, a tree structure, or an indirection table [Best, page 6, second paragraph].
`
`Regarding claim 62, Best discloses the method of claim 29, including:
`
`adding, modifying and/or deleting an object of the file and generating a new file object
`
`fingerprint [Best, page 5, “Extents” section].
`
`Regarding claim 63, Best discloses the method of claim 62, including:
`
`utilizing hardware acceleration to perform one or more of object generation,
`
`compression and encryption [Best, page 6, fourth paragraph].
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors.
`
`In considering patentability of
`
`the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of
`
`the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein
`
`were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation
`
`under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was
`
`16/25
`16/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g)
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`Claims 18, 31, 32, 42, 43, 57-59 & 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Best in view of “AlX 5L Version 5.2 General
`
`Programming Concepts: Writing and Debugging Programs” (published August
`
`2004, hereinafter “GPC”).
`
`Regarding claim 18, Best discloses the file system of claim 14, further
`
`comprising: the object store contains an index of object fingerprints, and object locations
`
`[Best, page 7, second paragraph].
`
`Best does not explicitly disclose object reference counts. However, GPC
`
`discloses object reference counts [GPC, page 124, “JFS In—Core l—node Structure’].
`
`Best and GPC are analogous art because both describe aspects of the same file
`
`system, the Journaled File System (JFS).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of Applicants’ invention to combine the disclosure of Best and
`
`GPC. The suggestion/motivation to combine is because doing so would implement
`
`additional features of the JFS to achieve an efficient file system.
`
`17/25
`17/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Regarding claim 31, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the method of
`
`claim 30, wherein: the location index includes reference counts for the objects [GPC,
`
`page 124, “JFS In—Core l—node Structure’j.
`
`Regarding claim 32, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the method of
`
`claim 31, wherein: the fingerprints, location index, inode map object, file objects and
`
`directory objects comprise a file system [Best, page 1, Abstract].
`
`Regarding claim 42, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the file system
`
`of claim 13, wherein the object store further includes: a location index that includes a
`
`reference count for each object, the reference count indicating the number of times the
`
`object is referenced [GPC, page 124, “JFS In—Core l—node Structure’].
`
`Regarding claim 43, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the file system
`
`of claim 42, including: a transaction log of object activity, including reads, writes, deletes
`
`and reference count updates [Best, page 3, eighth bullet point].
`
`Regarding claim 57, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the method of
`
`claim 31, including: upon a change to the file system, adjusting the reference counts of
`
`every object beneath the inode map object [GPC, page 124, “JFS In—Core l—node
`
`Structure ’j .
`
`18/25
`18/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Regarding claim 58, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the method of
`
`claim 57, wherein: the adjusting is performed on every I/O transaction to provide
`
`continuous data protection [GPC, page 124, “JFS ln—Core l—node Structure’].
`
`Regarding claim 59, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the method of
`
`claim 57, wherein: the adjusting is performed periodically, on demand, or on particular
`
`events to generate snapshots [GPC, page 124, “JFS ln—Core l—node Structure’j.
`
`Regarding claim 61, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the method of
`
`claim 31, including: generating a transaction log of all object activity including reads,
`
`writes, deletes and reference count updates [Best, page 3, eighth bullet point].
`
`Claims 20, 45, 46 & 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Best in view of Doering (US 2006/0036898 A1, hereinafter
`
`“Doering”).
`
`Regarding claim 20, Best discloses the file system of claim 13, but does not
`
`explicitly disclose wherein: the fingerprint is an cryptographic hash digest of the object
`
`content.
`
`19/25
`19/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`However, Doering discloses wherein: the fingerprint is an cryptographic hash
`
`digest of the object content [Doering, 1/1] 0031 & 0036].
`
`Best and Doering are analogous art because they are in the same field of
`
`endeavor, file systems.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`Applicants’ invention to modify the file system of Best with the system of Doering to
`
`arrive at a flexible file operation management system with hardware acceleration and
`
`encryption capabilities. The suggestion/motivation to combine is found in paragraph
`
`[0026] of Doering, which describes “Preferably, the file operation management device 1
`
`implements those file operating functions that are normally performed in an operating
`
`system as included in the file systems .
`
`.
`
`. JFS.”
`
`Regarding claim 45, the combination of Best and Doering discloses the file
`
`system of claim 13, including a processor and memory for storing and executing
`
`program instructions for accessing the object store using the object fingerprints.
`
`Regarding claim 46, the combination of Best and Doering discloses the file
`
`system of claim 13, including: a hardware accelerator for implementing one or more of
`
`generating and storing the objects.
`
`Regarding claim 50, the combination of Best and Doering discloses the file
`
`system of claim 13, wherein: the namespace file system and the object store are
`
`20/25
`20/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`implemented in one or more of digital electronic circuitry, computer hardware, firmware,
`
`a computer program in a machine readable storage device, or combinations thereof.
`
`Claims 19, 48 & 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Best in view of GPC, and further in view of Doering.
`
`Regarding claim 19, the combination of Best and GPC discloses the file system
`
`of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the object store index is stored in
`
`non—volatile memory.
`
`However, Doering discloses wherein: the object store index is stored in non-
`
`volatile memory.
`
`Best, GPC, and Doering are analogous art because they are in the same field of
`
`endeavor, file systems.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`Applicants’ invention to modify the combination of Best and GPC with the system of
`
`Doering to arrive at a flexible file operation management system with hardware
`
`acceleration and encryption capabilities. The suggestion/motivation to combine is found
`
`in paragraph [0026] of Doering, which describes “Preferably, the file operation
`
`management device 1 implements those file operating functions that are normally
`
`performed in an operating system as included in the file systems .
`
`.
`
`. JFS.”
`
`21/25
`21/25
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/823,922
`
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Regarding claim 48, the combination of Best, GPC, and Doering discloses the file
`
`system of claim 19, wherein: the non-volatile memory comprises solid state disk.
`
`Regarding claim 49, the combination of Best, GPC, and Doering discloses the file
`
`system of claim 48, wherein: the memory comprises flash memory.
`
`Claims 51 & 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Best in view of “AlX 5L Version 5.2 System Management
`
`Concepts: Operating System and Devices” (published May 2004, hereinafter
`
`“SMCH)-
`
`Regarding claim 51, Best discloses the method of claim 29, but does not
`
`explicitly disclose including: generating a snapshot of the file system from the fingerprint
`
`of the inode map object.
`
`However, SMC discloses including: generating a snapshot of the file system from
`
`the fingerprint of the inode map object.
`
`Best and SMC are analogous art because both describe aspects of the same file
`
`system, the Journaled File System (JFS).
`
`It would hav