`
`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.
`
`13/932,297
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`07/01/2013
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`Arthur J. BEAVERSON
`
`$044-7000US2
`
`6720
`
`Nov
`
`ont
`
`‘Ouigg |
`
`Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP a|
`100 Cambridge Street
`WALDRON,SCOTT A
`Suite 2101
`BOSTON, MA 02114
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2155
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/16/2015
`
`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):
`therese.hendricks @novakdruce.com
`dedocketing @novakdruce.com
`christine.grimes @novakdruce.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/932,297 BEAVERSON ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`Scott A. Waldron Na 2155
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`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).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed
`
`Status
`1)X] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/01/2013.
`LJ A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiledon__
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b) This action is non-final.
`3)L] Anelection was made bythe applicant in responsetoarestriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporatedinto this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
` Attachment(s)
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5) Claim(s) 1-12,23-28 and 34-41 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)L] Claim(s)____is/are allowed.
`
`7) Claim(s) 1-12,23-28 and 34-41 is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)____is/are objectedto.
`
`9)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
`or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspto.qoy.
`
`Application Papers
`10)L] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)] The drawing(s)filed on 07/01/2013 is/are: a)X] accepted or b)_] 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)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)L] All
`b)[-] Some** c)L] None ofthe:
`1..] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin 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.
`
`3) CT] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) X Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`:
`.
`4 Ol Other:
`2) X Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 05/27/14 & 05/28/14.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20150907
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Claims 13-22 & 29-33 were cancelled by preliminary amendmentfiled
`
`07/01/2013. Claims 1-12, 23-28 & 34-41 are presented for examination.
`
`Priority
`
`Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications 61/269,633 and
`
`12/823,922 (now USPN 8,478,799) is acknowledged.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2014 and
`
`05/28/2014 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the
`
`information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 5, 6 & 8 are objected to becauseofthe following informalities:
`
`Claims 5 & 6 depend on claim 4 andrecite “the inode map fingerprint”. There is
`
`insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
`
`Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and recites “the previous inode map fingerprints”.
`
`There is insufficient antecedent basis for the plural form of this limitation in the claim.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 3
`
`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 improvementthereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirementsofthistitle.
`
`Claims 1-12 & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Regarding claim 1 (“file system”), the examiner found support in the specification
`
`at paragraph [176], which describes “Embodiments of the invention can be implemented
`
`in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in
`
`combinations of them.” As currently claimed, the file systems are capable of being
`
`implementedsolely in a software embodiment (“software per se”), and are therefore
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 2 does not cure the deficiency and is
`
`rejected for their dependency uponarejected claim.
`
`Regarding claims 3 (“computer-readable medium”) & 34 (“computer-readable
`
`medium”), the examiner found support in the specification at paragraph [176], which
`
`provides non-limiting examples and 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, for
`
`execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus, e.g., a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 4
`
`programmable processor, a computer, or multiple computers.” As currently claimed, the
`
`claims are capable of being implemented as propagated signals, and are therefore
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 4-12 do not cure the deficiency and are
`
`rejected for their dependency uponarejected claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claimsparticularly
`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:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claims 9 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA),
`
`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-AlA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claims 9 & 12, line 2 recites "the objects have reference counts".
`
`It is
`
`unclear which objects are being referred to. Specifically, claim 1 recites to data,
`
`metadata,file, and root objects, whereasclaim 4 recites a file system inode map object.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 5
`
`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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousnessrejections 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 thistitle, 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 namesjoint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter
`
`of the various claims was commonly ownedatthe time any inventions coveredtherein
`
`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
`
`not commonly ownedatthe time a later invention was madein orderfor the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`Claims 1-8, 23, 26-28 & 34 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over the article by Sean Quinlan & Sean Dorward entitled
`
`“Venti: A New Approach to Archival Storage”(cited in the IDS filed 05/28/2014,
`
`hereinafter “Quinlan") in view of Moulton et al. (US 2004/0148306 A1, cited in the
`
`IDS filed 05/28/2014, hereinafter “Moulton”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding independentclaims 1, 3, 23 & 34, Quinlan discloses
`
`A file system [Quinlan, Abstract] comprising:
`
`the file system having a root object comprising a mapping of all object
`
`fingerprints in the file system [ Quinlan, page 4, § 4, second paragraph, disclosing
`
`“Applications use the block level service provided by Venti to store more complex data
`
`structures. Data is divided into blocks and written to the server. To enable this data to
`
`be retrieved, the application must record the fingerprints of these blocks. One approach
`
`is to pack the fingerprints into additional blocks, called pointer blocks, that are also
`
`written to the server, a process that can be repeated recursively until a single fingerprint
`
`is obtained. This fingerprint represents the root of a tree of blocks and correspondsto a
`
`hierarchical hash of the original data.”|; and
`
`wherein a change to the file system results in a change in the root object, and
`
`tracking changesin the root object providesa history offile system activity [Quinian,
`
`page 4, § 4, third paragraph, disclosing “A simple data structure for storing a linear
`
`sequenceof data blocks is shown in Figure 1. The data blocks are located via a fixed
`
`depth tree of pointer blocks whichitself is addressed by a root fingerprint. Applications
`
`can use such a structure to store a single file or to mimic the behavior of a physical
`
`device such as a tape or a disk drive. The write-once nature of Venti does not allow
`
`such a tree to be modified, but new versionsof the tree can be generatedefficiently by
`
`storing the new or modified data blocks and reusing the unchanged sections ofthe tree
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 7
`
`as depicted in Figure 2.” The write-once nature with the generation of new trees
`
`corresponds to tracking changes to provide a history.].
`
`Quinlan doesnotexplicitly disclose a digitally signed file system in which data,
`
`metadata andfiles are objects, each object having a globally unique and content-
`
`derived fingerprint and wherein object references are mappedbythe fingerprints.
`
`However, Moulton discloses
`
`a digitally signed file system [Moulton, 7 0035 & 0036]
`
`in which data, metadata andfiles are objects [Moulton, {| 0056, disclosing “With
`
`reference additionally now to FIG. 6, yet anotherlogic flow chart is shownillustrating a
`
`process 500 for the comparisonoffile hash or directory list hash values to existing
`
`directory list hash values and the addition of newfile or directory list hash values to the
`
`database directory list. The process 500 operates on stored data 502 which comprises
`
`an accumulatedlist offile names, file meta-data (e.g. date, time, file length, file type
`
`etc.) and the file's hash value for each item in a directory. At step 504, the hash function
`
`is run upon the contents ofthe directory list. Decision step 506 is operative to determine
`
`whether or not the hash value for the directorylist is in the set 212 of existing hash
`
`values 214. If itis, then the process 500 returns to add anotherfile hash or directorylist
`
`hash to a directory list. Alternatively, if the hash value for the directory list is not already
`
`in the database set 212, the hash value and data for the directory list are added to the
`
`database 212 set at step 508.”,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 8
`
`each object having a globally unique and content-derived fingerprint [ Moulton,
`
`0035, disclosing “Particularly disclosed herein is a hash file system that manages the
`
`correspondence of one or more block(s) of data (including but not limitedto files,
`
`directories, drive images, software applications, digitized voice, and rich media content)
`
`together with one or more symbol(s) for that block of data, wherein the symbol may be a
`
`number, hash, checksum, binary sequence, or other identifier that is derived from the
`
`block of data itself andis statistically, probabilistically, or otherwise effectively unique to
`
`that block of data.”| and
`
`wherein object references are mappedbythe fingerprints [Moulton, ¢§ 0059 &
`
`0060, disclosing “The basic structure of the hash file system of the present inventionis
`
`essentially that of a "tree" or "bush" wherein the hash values 806 are used instead of
`
`conventional pointers. The hash values 806 are used in the recipes to point to the data
`
`or another hash value that could also itself be a recipe. In essence then, recipes can
`
`point to other recipes that point to still other recipes that ultimately point to some specific
`
`data that may, itself, point to other recipes that point to even more data, eventually
`
`getting down to nothing but data.’.
`
`Quinlan and Moulton are analogous art becausethey are in the same field of
`
`endeavor, hash file systems and data storage.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to combine the hashedfile
`
`storage system of Quinlan with the cryptographic file system of Moulton to achieve
`
`efficient and deduplicated storage. The suggestion/motivation to combine is provided in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 9
`
`Quinlan at page 2, § 3, first paragraph (“Venti is a block-level network storage system
`
`intendedfor archival data. The interface to the system is a simple protocol that enables
`
`client applications to read and write variable sized blocks of data. Venti itself does not
`
`provide the services ofa file or backup system, but rather the backend archival storage
`
`for these types of applications.”) and at page 6, § 4.3, first paragraph (“When combined
`
`with a small amount of read/write storage, Venti can be used as the primary location for
`
`data rather than a place to store backups.").
`
`Regarding claims 2 & 4, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`file system of claim 1, wherein:
`
`the file system includes an inode map object comprising a mapping of inode
`
`numbersto file object fingerprints [Quinian, page 2, § 3, second andthird paragraphs,
`
`disclosing “Venti identifies data blocks by a hash of their contents. By using a collision-
`
`resistant hash function with a sufficiently large output, it is possible to consider the hash
`
`of a data block as unique. Such a unique hashis called the fingerprint of a block and
`
`can be used as the addressfor read and write operations. This approach results in a
`
`storage system with a numberofinteresting properties. As blocks are addressed by the
`
`fingerprint of their contents, a block cannot be modified without changing its address;
`
`the behavioris intrinsically write-once. This property distinguishes Venti from most other
`
`storage systems, in which the address of a block and its contents are independent.”
`
`The examinerinterprets the hashed data blocks of Quinlan to correspondto inodes.]
`
`and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 10
`
`wherein the fingerprint of the inode map object comprises a snapshotof thefile
`
`system [Quinlan, page 4, § 4, second paragraph, disclosing “This fingerprint represents
`
`the root of a tree of blocks and correspondsto a hierarchical hash ofthe original data.”|.
`
`Regarding claim 5, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`medium of claim 4, including: publishing the inode mapfingerprint to another computer
`
`system on a distinct object store [Quinlan, page 10, § 7, right column, third complete
`
`paragraph, disclosing “Additional protection could be obtained by using one or moreoff-
`
`site mirrors for the server. We have not yet implementedthis strategy, but the
`
`architecture of Venti makesthis relatively simple. A background process on the server
`
`copies newblocks from the data log to the mirrors. This copying can be achieved using
`
`the Venti protocol; the server is simply anotherclient to the mirror.’].
`
`Regarding claim 6, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`medium of claim 4, including: using the inode mapfingerprint as a snapshotof the file
`
`system for disaster recovery [Quinlan, page 10, § 7, right column, third complete
`
`paragraph. The examinernotes the off-site mirror copy may be usedfor disaster
`
`recovery.].
`
`Regarding claim 7, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`medium of claim 4, wherein: the inode map object contains a fingerprint of a previous
`
`inode map [Quinlan, page 4, § 4, Figures 1 & 2, disclosing previous inode maps in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`gray portion of Figure 2].
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding claim 8, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`medium of claim 7, wherein: the previous inode mapfingerprints comprise a history of
`
`snapshots ofthe file system [Quinian, page 2, § 2, left column, second full paragraph,
`
`disclosing snapshots at somepoint in the past.].
`
`Regarding claim 26, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`methodof claim 23, including: adding, modifying or deleting a data objectin a file and
`
`generating a newfile object fingerprint.
`
`Regarding claim 27, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`method of claim 23, including: when the contentof a file object or data objectis
`
`changed, propagating the change up to the root object.
`
`Regarding claim 28, the combination of Quinlan and Moulton discloses the
`
`method of claim 27, including: performing the propagating step at one of: every I/O
`
`transaction; periodically; on demand; at a particular event.
`
`Claims 35-37 & 39-41 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Moulton in view of Quinlan.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding independent claim 35, Moulton discloses
`
`A system comprising:
`
`physical processor and storage devices providing access to data, metadata and
`
`files [Moulton, § 0050, operating system implements a file system for accessing mass
`
`storage via the hard disk controllers]; and
`
`wherein the data, metadata andfiles are objects [Moulton, § 0056, disclosing
`
`“With reference additionally now to FIG. 6, yet another logic flow chart is shown
`
`illustrating a process 500 for the comparison offile hash or directory list hash values to
`
`existing directory list hash values and the addition of newfile or directory list hash
`
`values to the databasedirectory list. The process 500 operates on stored data 502
`
`which comprises an accumulatedlist offile names, file meta-data (e.g. date, time, file
`
`length, file type etc.) and the file's hash value for each item in a directory. At step 504,
`
`the hash function is run upon the contents of the directory list. Decision step 506 is
`
`operative to determine whetheror not the hash value for the directorylist is in the set
`
`212 of existing hash values 214.If it is, then the process 500 returns to add anotherfile
`
`hashor directory list hash to a directory list. Alternatively, if the hash value for the
`
`directory list is not already in the database set 212, the hash value anddata for the
`
`directory list are addedto the database 212 set at step 508.”|,
`
`each object having a globally unique and content-derivedfingerprint
`
`[Moulton, § 0035, disclosing “Particularly disclosed herein is a hashfile system
`
`that manages the correspondenceof one or more block(s) of data (including but
`
`notlimited to files, directories, drive images, software applications, digitized
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 13
`
`voice, and rich media content) together with one or more symbol(s) for that block
`
`of data, wherein the symbol may be a number, hash, checksum, binary
`
`sequence, or other identifier that is derived from the block of data itself and is
`
`statistically, probabilistically, or otherwise effectively unique to that block of
`
`data.”),
`
`and wherein object references are indexed by the fingerprints [Moulton,
`
`qf 0059 & 0060, disclosing “The basic structure of the hash file system of the
`
`present invention is essentially that of a "tree" or "bush" wherein the hash values
`
`806 are used instead of conventional pointers. The hash values 806 are usedin
`
`the recipes to point to the data or another hash value that could also itself be a
`
`recipe. In essence then, recipes can point to other recipes that point to still other
`
`recipes that ultimately point to some specific data that may, itself, point to other
`
`recipes that point to even more data, eventually getting down to nothing but
`
`data.’].
`
`Moulton does not explicitly disclose wherein the indexing includes mapping of
`
`inode numbersto the file object fingerprints.
`
`However, Quinlan discloses wherein the indexing includes mapping of inode
`
`numbersto the file object fingerprints [Quinlan, page 2, § 3, second andthird
`
`paragraphs, disclosing “Venti identifies data blocks by a hashof their contents. By
`
`using a collision-resistant hash function with a sufficiently large output, it is possible to
`
`consider the hash of a data block as unique. Such a unique hashis called the fingerprint
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 14
`
`of a block and can be used as the address for read and write operations. This approach
`
`results in a storage system with a numberofinteresting properties. As blocks are
`
`addressedbythefingerprint of their contents, a block cannot be modified without
`
`changing its address; the behavioris intrinsically write-once. This property distinguishes
`
`Venti from most other storage systems, in which the address of a block and its contents
`
`are independent.” The examinerinterprets the hashed data blocks of Quinlan to
`
`correspondto inodes.].
`
`Moulton and Quinlan are analogous art because they are in the same field of
`
`endeavor, hash file systems and data storage.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to combine the cryptographic
`
`file system of Moulton with the hashedfile storage system of Quinlan to achieveefficient
`
`and deduplicated storage. The suggestion/motivation to combine is provided in Quinlan
`
`at page 2, § 3, first paragraph (“Venti is a block-level network storage system intended
`
`for archival data. The interface to the system is a simple protocol that enables client
`
`applications to read and write variable sized blocks of data. Venti itself does not
`
`provide the services ofa file or backup system, but rather the backend archival storage
`
`for these types of applications.”) and at page 6, § 4.3, first paragraph (“When combined
`
`with a small amountof read/write storage, Venti can be used as the primary location for
`
`data rather than a place to store backups.").
`
`Regarding independent claim 36, Moulton discloses
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 15
`
`A file system [Moulton, Abstract] comprising:
`
`each data object comprising data or metadata [Moulton, J 0056, disclosing “With
`
`reference additionally now to FIG. 6, yet anotherlogic flow chart is shownillustrating a
`
`process 500 for the comparisonoffile hash or directory list hash values to existing
`
`directory list hash values and the addition of newfile or directory list hash values to the
`
`database directory list. The process 500 operates on stored data 502 which comprises
`
`an accumulatedlist offile names, file meta-data (e.g. date, time, file length, file type
`
`etc.) and the file's hash value for each item in a directory. At step 504, the hash function
`
`is run upon the contents ofthe directory list. Decision step 506 is operative to determine
`
`whether or not the hash value for the directory list is in the set 212 of existing hash
`
`values 214. If itis, then the process 500 returns to add anotherfile hash or directorylist
`
`hash to a directory list. Alternatively, if the hash value for the directory list is not already
`
`in the database set 212, the hash value and data for the directory list are added to the
`
`database 212 set at step 508.”| and
`
`each object having a content-based globally unique fingerprint as its object name
`
`[Moulton, § 0035, disclosing “Particularly disclosed herein is a hashfile system that
`
`manages the correspondence of one or more block(s) of data (including but notlimited
`
`to files, directories, drive images, software applications, digitized voice, and rich media
`
`content) together with one or more symbol(s) for that block of data, wherein the symbol
`
`may be a number, hash, checksum, binary sequence, or other identifier that is derived
`
`from the block of data itself andis statistically, probabilistically, or otherwise effectively
`
`unique to that block of data.”],
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 16
`
`the file object being a collection of data object names and having its own content-
`
`based globally unique fingerprint asits file object name [Moulton, § 0056, disclosing
`
`“With reference additionally now to FIG. 6, yet another logic flow chart is shown
`
`illustrating a process 500 for the comparison offile hash or directory list hash values to
`
`existing directory list hash values and the addition of newfile or directory list hash
`
`values to the databasedirectory list. The process 500 operates on stored data 502
`
`which comprises an accumulatedlist offile names, file meta-data (e.g. date, time, file
`
`length, file type etc.) and the file's hash value for each item in a directory. At step 504,
`
`the hash function is run upon the contents of the directory list. Decision step 506 is
`
`operative to determine whetheror not the hash value for the directorylist is in the set
`
`212 of existing hash values 214.If it is, then the process 500 returns to add anotherfile
`
`hashor directory list hash to a directory list. Alternatively, if the hash value for the
`
`directory list is not already in the database set 212, the hash value and data for the
`
`directory list are added to the database 212 set at step 508.”;
`
`a file system having two layers [Moulton, Figure 10] including:
`
`an object store layer including a mapping index of object names and
`
`physical object locations [Moulton, Figure 10 and ¢§ 0061 & 0062, disclosing
`
`“With reference additionally now to FIG. 10, a simplified diagram 900 is shown
`
`illustrative of a hash file system address translation function for an exemplary
`
`160 bit hash value 902. The hash value 902 includes a data structure comprising
`
`a front portion 904 and a back portion 906 as shown and the diagram 900
`
`illustrates a particular "0 of 1" operation that is used for enabling the use of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 17
`
`hash value 902 to go to the location of the particular node in the system that
`
`contains the corresponding data.”|; and
`
`a namespacelayer including a mapping index of data object namesfor
`
`eachfile object [Moulton, | 0055, disclosing “With reference additionally now to
`
`FIG. 5, another logic flow chart is shown depicting a comparison process 400 for
`
`the hash values 310 of each piece 306ofthe file to those of existing hash values
`
`214 maintained in the set 212. Particularly, at step 402, the hash values 310 for
`
`each piece 306 ofthe file are comparedto existing hash values 214 and new
`
`hash values 408 and corresponding new data pieces 406 are addedto the set
`
`212. In this way, hash values 408 not previously present in the database set 212
`
`are added togetherwith their associated data pieces 406. The process 400 also
`
`results in the production of records 404 showing the equivalence of a single hash
`
`valueforall file pieces with the hash values 310 of the various pieces 306.”].
`
`Moulton does not explicitly disclose a processing and storage apparatus for
`
`naming andstoring data objects and collections of data objects comprising file objects.
`
`However, Quinlan discloses a processing and storage apparatus for naming and
`
`storing data objects and collections of data objects comprising file objects [ Quinian,
`
`page 2, § 3, second and third paragraphs, disclosing “Venti identifies data blocks by a
`
`hashof their contents. By using a collision-resistant hash function with a sufficiently
`
`large output, it is possible to consider the hash of a data block as unique. Such a unique
`
`hashis called the fingerprint of a block and can be used as the address for read and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/932,297
`Art Unit: 2155
`
`Page 18
`
`write operations. This approach results in a storage system with a numberofinteresting
`
`properties. As blocks are addressed by the fingerprint of their contents, a block cannot
`
`be modified without changing its address; the behavioris intrinsically write-once. This
`
`property distinguishes Venti from most other storage systems, in which the addressof a
`
`block and its contents are independent.”
`
`Moulton and Quinlan are analogous art because they are in the same field of
`
`endeavor, hash file systems and data storage.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to combine the cryptographic
`
`file system of Moulton with the hashedfile storage system of Quinlan to achieveefficient
`
`and deduplicated storage. The suggestion/motivation to combineis provided in Quinlan
`
`at page 2, § 3, first paragraph (“Venti is a block-level network storage system intended
`
`for archival data. The interface to the system is a simple protocol that enables client
`
`applications to read and write variable sized blocks of data. Venti itself does not
`
`provide the servicesofa file or backup system, but rather the backend archival storage
`
`for these types of applications.”) and at page 6, § 4.3, first paragraph (“When combined
`
`with a small amountof read/write storage, Venti can be used as the primary location for
`
`data rather than a place to store backups.").
`
`Regarding claim 37, the combination of Moulton and Quinlan dis