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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant's arguments filed on 6/5/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipchuk, Maor et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140075029), hereafter, referred to as “Lipchuk”, in view of Thind, Ravinder et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060117135), hereafter, referred to as “Thind”, in view of Hocker, Michael (US Patent No. US 9411576) hereafter referred to as “Hocker”, in further view of Piao, Cong-zhu (Chinese Patent Document CN 105938418) hereafter referred to as “Piao”.
Regarding claim 1(Currently Amended), Lipchuk teaches A method, comprising: receiving, from a first device, a first command to enable a quota capability of a distributed file system(Lipchuk, para 0028 discloses enabling storage quota “A quota management console can allow the administrator to manage, share and monitor the resources in the data center from the engine core point of view, as well as add, remove, enable, disable or modify quotas”; further, para 0029 discloses any quota related attribute/parameter for enabling or enforcing quota “a quota can include a name, description, data center to which the quota applies, …. and resource limitation parameters…..”),
receiving, subsequent to adding the first symbol to the quota attribute and from a second device (Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses existence of previous quota attribute to new quota enforcement to work on “a change in the parameters of a quota object can result in an entity's use exceeding the new resource limitations. For example, the quota object may be edited to reduce the disk limitation of some storage domain……..”),
a second command to disable the quota capability of the distributed file system; in response to receiving the second command, initiating a quota attribute removal process with respect to the directory(Lipchuk, para 0028 discloses disabling/deleting storage quota “A quota management console can allow the administrator to manage, share and monitor the resources in the data center from the engine core point of view, as well as add, remove, enable, disable or modify quotas”; further, para 0029 and 0044 discloses deleting any quota related attribute/parameter by disabling or not enforcing quota “a quota can include a name, description, data center to which the quota applies, …. and resource limitation parameters…..Quota3 has a status of “disabled,” which means that the data center does not enforce this quota, but can still track resource usage under this quota if the user so desires”);
receiving, prior to completion of the quota attribute removal process and from the first device, a third command to enable the quota capability of the distributed file system; in response to receiving the third command and prior to the completion of the quota attribute removal process(Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses prior to deletion of storage quota changing quota attribute/value such as reducing or increasing quota “prior to deleting the quota object. Quota objects can be edited. When a quota object is edited, the data center can apply any changes to all entities that are assigned to the quota……..”),
But Lipchuk does not explicitly teach wherein the quota capability associates a quota attribute with a directory of the distributed file system, and wherein the quota attribute comprises an attribute name; in response to receiving the first command, adding, by a processing device, a first symbol to the quota attribute corresponding to a first version of the quota attribute; replacing the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute(:
receiving, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system: and performing, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However, in the same field of endeavor of quota management of a file system Thind teaches wherein the quota capability associates a quota attribute with a directory of the distributed file system, and wherein the quota attribute comprises an attribute name(Thind, para 0051 discloses attribute with name “a last configuration time that indicates when the quota attributes were last modified, a quota tag that comprises a user-defined string that is associated with the quota, and the like”); in response to receiving the first command, adding, by a processing device, a first symbol to the quota attribute corresponding to a first version of the quota attribute (Thind, paragraph 0051 discloses based on the metadata various quota attributes “A quota may include various attributes. Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit), amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants, …”; here the examiner interprets “first value” and “second value” as any valid values for attributes; para 0057-0058 further discloses assignment of value to a quota attribute “before starting the scan, the quota usage of the quota may be set to zero.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of changing disc/directory quota of file system by named attributes of Thind into the directory space quota changing process of Lipchuk to produce an expected result of conveniently changing the directory quota. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to correctly adjust the quota usage of the quota by tracking entry of each object in the object list (Thind, para 0099 and 0109).
But Lipchuk and Thind don’t explicitly teach replacing the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute: receiving, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system: and performing, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute.
However in the same field of endeavor of a file system attribute value assignment Hocker teaches replacing the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute(Hocker, claim 1 discloses replacing first version of symbol with second version of symbol “wherein the compatibility database comprises one or more revision identifiers and one or more attributes thereof for the different versions, and wherein the attributes describe properties of a migration from a first version of the different versions to a second version of the different versions, the properties comprising a concurrent update capability if the first version is replaced by the second version”):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of replacing first version of symbol with second version of symbol of Hocker into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values of Lipchuk and Thind to produce an expected result of confidently changing attribute values. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide concurrent update capability in a multi-user environment for conflict avoidance (Hocker, claim 1).
But Lipchuk, Thind and Hocker don’t explicitly teach receiving, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system: and performing, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling the execution of command order Piao teaches receiving, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system: and performing, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute(Piao, page 3 para 6-9 discloses setting storage command (quota capability command) executes before removal command “reset unit may control the execution order of the two or more commands …and command always be continuous…….resetting the execution sequence of at most N command and command resetting the at most N assigned to the K memory steps may include: the latest received from the host and stored in the storage space of the command set to remove command, the N-1 commands are stored in the setting storage space remaining before the removing command distributed to the K memory devices, after excluding the command allocated to the K storage device, and received from the host after a command assigned to the K memory devices”; where Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses deletion and assignment of quota).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of controlling one command prior to execution of another of Piao into the directory quota removal and assignment of Lipchuk, Thind and Hocker to produce an expected result of controlling disk quota removal and allocation. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control multiple disk quota related commands in continuous manner (Piao, page 3 para 6) .
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 1 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a size of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses quota attribute for directory size “Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit), amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants”).
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 1 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a limit on a size of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses directory size limit “Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit)”).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 1 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a contribution of a first size of the directory to a second size of a parent directory of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses quota attribute for parent and child/descendants (first and second) directory size “Some exemplary quota attributes include …..amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants”).
Regarding claim 8(Currently Amended), Lipchuk teaches An apparatus, comprising: one or more storage devices to store a distributed file system; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the one or more storage devices, to (Lipchuk, Fig. 13 discloses system for enforce storage quota): receive, from a first device, a first command to enable a quota capability of the distributed file system(Lipchuk, para 0028 discloses enabling storage quota “A quota management console can allow the administrator to manage, share and monitor the resources in the data center from the engine core point of view, as well as add, remove, enable, disable or modify quotas”; further, para 0029 discloses any quota related attribute/parameter for enabling or enforcing quota “a quota can include a name, description, data center to which the quota applies, …. and resource limitation parameters…..”),
receive, subsequent to the addition of the first symbol to the quota attribute(Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses existence of previous quota attribute to new quota enforcement to work on “a change in the parameters of a quota object can result in an entity's use exceeding the new resource limitations. For example, the quota object may be edited to reduce the disk limitation of some storage domain……..”), a second command to disable the quota capability of the distributed file system; in response to the reception of the second command, initiate a quota attribute removal process with respect to the directory(Lipchuk, para 0028 discloses disabling/deleting storage quota “A quota management console can allow the administrator to manage, share and monitor the resources in the data center from the engine core point of view, as well as add, remove, enable, disable or modify quotas”; further, para 0029 and 0044 discloses deleting any quota related attribute/parameter by disabling or not enforcing quota “a quota can include a name, description, data center to which the quota applies, …. and resource limitation parameters…..Quota3 has a status of “disabled,” which means that the data center does not enforce this quota, but can still track resource usage under this quota if the user so desires”);
receive, prior to completion of the quota attribute removal process and from the first device, a third command to enable the quota capability of the distributed file system; in response to the reception of the third command and prior to the completion of the quota attribute removal process(Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses prior to deletion of the storage quota changing quota attribute/value such as reducing or increasing quota “prior to deleting the quota object. Quota objects can be edited. When a quota object is edited, the data center can apply any changes to all entities that are assigned to the quota……..”),
But Lipchuk does not explicitly teach wherein the quota capability associates a quota attribute with a directory of the distributed file system and wherein the quota attribute comprises an attribute name; in response to the reception of the first command, add a first symbol to the quota attribute corresponding to a first version of the quota attribute; replace the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute; receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However, in the same field of endeavor of quota management of a file system Thind teaches wherein the quota capability associates a quota attribute with a directory of the distributed file system and wherein the quota attribute comprises an attribute name(Thind, para 0051 discloses attribute with name “a last configuration time that indicates when the quota attributes were last modified, a quota tag that comprises a user-defined string that is associated with the quota, and the like”);
in response to the reception of the first command, add a first symbol to the quota attribute corresponding to a first version of the quota attribute(Thind, paragraph 0051 discloses based on the metadata various quota attributes “A quota may include various attributes. Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit), amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants, …”; here the examiner interprets “first value” and “second value” as any valid values for attributes; para 0057-0058 further discloses assignment of value to a quota attribute “before starting the scan, the quota usage of the quota may be set to zero.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of changing disc/directory quota of file system by named attributes of Thind into the directory space quota changing process of Lipchuk to produce an expected result of conveniently changing the directory quota. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to correctly adjust the quota usage of the quota by tracking entry of each object in the object list (Thind, para 0099 and 0109).
But Lipchuk and Thind don’t explicitly teach replace the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute; receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However in the same field of endeavor of a file system attribute value assignment Hocker teaches replace the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute (Hocker, claim 1 discloses replacing first version of symbol with second version of symbol “wherein the compatibility database comprises one or more revision identifiers and one or more attributes thereof for the different versions, and wherein the attributes describe properties of a migration from a first version of the different versions to a second version of the different versions, the properties comprising a concurrent update capability if the first version is replaced by the second version”):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of replacing first version of symbol with second version of symbol of Hocker into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values of Lipchuk and Thind to produce an expected result of confidently changing attribute values. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide concurrent update capability in a multi-user environment for conflict avoidance (Hocker, claim 1).
But Lipchuk, Thind and Hocker don’t explicitly teach receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling the execution of command order Piao teaches receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute (Piao, page 3 para 6-9 discloses setting storage command (quota capability command) executes before removal command “reset unit may control the execution order of the two or more commands …and command always be continuous…….resetting the execution sequence of at most N command and command resetting the at most N assigned to the K memory steps may include: the latest received from the host and stored in the storage space of the command set to remove command, the N-1 commands are stored in the setting storage space remaining before the removing command distributed to the K memory devices, after excluding the command allocated to the K storage device, and received from the host after a command assigned to the K memory devices”; where Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses deletion and assignment of quota).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of controlling one command prior to execution of another of Piao into the directory quota removal and assignment of Lipchuk, Thind and Hocker to produce an expected result of controlling disk quota removal and allocation. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control multiple disk quota related commands in continuous manner (Piao, page 3 para 6) .
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 8 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a size of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses quota attribute for directory size “Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit), amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants”).
Regarding claim 11 (Previously Presented), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 8 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a limit on a size of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses directory size limit “Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit)”).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 8 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a contribution of a first size of the directory to a second size of a parent directory of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses quota attribute for parent and child/descendants directory size (first and second) “Some exemplary quota attributes include …..amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants”).
Regarding claim 15(Currently Amended), Lipchuk teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having instructions stored therein, which when executed, cause a processing device to(Lipchuk, Fig. 13 and para 0055 discloses storage medium and processing devices): receive, from a first device, a first command to disable a quota capability of a distributed file system(Lipchuk, para 0028 discloses disabling/deleting storage quota “A quota management console can allow the administrator to manage, share and monitor the resources in the data center from the engine core point of view, as well as add, remove, enable, disable or modify quotas”; further, para 0029 and 0044 discloses deleting any quota related attribute/parameter by disabling or not enforcing quota “a quota can include a name, description, data center to which the quota applies, …. and resource limitation parameters…..Quota3 has a status of “disabled,” which means that the data center does not enforce this quota, but can still track resource usage under this quota if the user so desires”),
receive, subsequent to the addition of the first symbol to the quota attribute(Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses existence of previous quota attribute to new quota enforcement to work on “a change in the parameters of a quota object can result in an entity's use exceeding the new resource limitations. For example, the quota object may be edited to reduce the disk limitation of some storage domain……..”), a second command to disable the quota capability of the distributed file system; in response to the reception of the second command, initiate a quota attribute removal process with respect to the directory(Lipchuk, para 0028 discloses disabling/deleting storage quota “A quota management console can allow the administrator to manage, share and monitor the resources in the data center from the engine core point of view, as well as add, remove, enable, disable or modify quotas”; further, para 0029 and 0044 discloses deleting any quota related attribute/parameter by disabling or not enforcing quota “a quota can include a name, description, data center to which the quota applies, …. and resource limitation parameters…..Quota3 has a status of “disabled,” which means that the data center does not enforce this quota, but can still track resource usage under this quota if the user so desires”); receive, prior to completion of the quota attribute removal process and from the first device, a third command to enable the quota capability of the distributed file system; in response to the reception of the third command and prior to the completion of the quota attribute removal process(Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses prior to deletion of the storage quota changing quota attribute/value such as reducing or increasing quota “prior to deleting the quota object. Quota objects can be edited. When a quota object is edited, the data center can apply any changes to all entities that are assigned to the quota……..”),
But Lipchuk does not explicitly teach wherein the quota capability associates a quota attribute with a directory of the distributed file system, and wherein the quota attribute comprises an attribute name; in response to the reception of the first command, add, by the processing device, a first symbol to the quota attribute corresponding to a first version of the quota attribute; replace the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute; receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However, in the same field of endeavor of quota management of a file system Thind teaches wherein the quota capability associates a quota attribute with a directory of the distributed file system, and wherein the quota attribute comprises an attribute name (Thind, para 0051 discloses attribute with name “a last configuration time that indicates when the quota attributes were last modified, a quota tag that comprises a user-defined string that is associated with the quota, and the like”); in response to the reception of the first command, add, by the processing device, a first symbol to the quota attribute corresponding to a first version of the quota attribute (Thind, paragraph 0051 discloses based on the metadata various quota attributes “A quota may include various attributes. Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit), amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants, …”; here the examiner interprets “first value” and “second value” as any valid values for attributes; para 0057-0058 further discloses assignment of value to a quota attribute “before starting the scan, the quota usage of the quota may be set to zero.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of changing disc/directory quota of file system by named attributes of Thind into the directory space quota changing process of Lipchuk to produce an expected result of conveniently changing the directory quota. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to correctly adjust the quota usage of the quota by tracking entry of each object in the object list (Thind, para 0099 and 0109).
But Lipchuk and Thind don’t explicitly teach replace the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute; receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However, in the same field of endeavor of a file system attribute value assignment Hocker teaches replace the first symbol in the quota attribute that corresponds to the first version of the quota attribute with a second symbol corresponding to a second version of the quota attribute(Hocker, claim 1 discloses replacing first version of symbol with second version of symbol “wherein the compatibility database comprises one or more revision identifiers and one or more attributes thereof for the different versions, and wherein the attributes describe properties of a migration from a first version of the different versions to a second version of the different versions, the properties comprising a concurrent update capability if the first version is replaced by the second version”):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of replacing first version of symbol with second version of symbol of Hocker into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values of Lipchuk and Thind to produce an expected result of confidently changing attribute values. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide concurrent update capability in a multi-user environment for conflict avoidance (Hocker, claim 1).
But Lipchuk, Thind and Hocker don’t explicitly teach receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute,
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling the execution of command order Piao teaches receive, from an application, a request to perform an operation with respect to the directory of the distributed file system; and perform, based on the request, the operation with respect to the directory in view of the quota attribute comprising the attribute name and the second symbol corresponding to the second version of the quota attribute (Piao, page 3 para 6-9 discloses setting storage command (quota capability command) executes before removal command “reset unit may control the execution order of the two or more commands …and command always be continuous…….resetting the execution sequence of at most N command and command resetting the at most N assigned to the K memory steps may include: the latest received from the host and stored in the storage space of the command set to remove command, the N-1 commands are stored in the setting storage space remaining before the removing command distributed to the K memory devices, after excluding the command allocated to the K storage device, and received from the host after a command assigned to the K memory devices”; where Lipchuk, para 0037 discloses deletion and assignment of quota).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of controlling one command prior to execution of another of Piao into the directory quota removal and assignment of Lipchuk, Thind and Hocker to produce an expected result of controlling disk quota removal and allocation. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control multiple disk quota related commands in continuous manner (Piao, page 3 para 6).
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 15 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a size of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses quota attribute for directory size “Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit), amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants”).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 15 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a limit on a size of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses directory size limit “Some exemplary quota attributes include amount of disk space permitted to be consumed by a directory and all of its descendants (sometimes referred to as a quota limit)”).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 15 and Thind further teaches wherein the quota attribute is a contribution of a first size of the directory to a second size of a parent directory of the directory (Thind, para 0051 discloses quota attribute for parent and child/descendants directory size (first and second) “Some exemplary quota attributes include …..amount of disk space currently consumed by the directory and all of its descendants”).
Claim 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipchuk, Maor et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140075029), hereafter, referred to as “Lipchuk”, in view of Thind, Ravinder et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060117135), hereafter, referred to as “Thind”, in view of Hocker, Michael (US Patent No. US 9411576) hereafter referred to as “Hocker”, in view of Piao, Cong-zhu (Chinese Patent Document CN 105938418) hereafter referred to as “Piao”, in further view of Karren, Thomas et al (PGPUB Document No. 20160242024), hereafter, referred to as “Karren”.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the first symbol comprises one or more first characters representing an integer N, and wherein the second symbol comprises one or more second characters representing an integer N+1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Karren teaches wherein the first symbol comprises one or more first characters representing an integer N, and wherein the second symbol comprises one or more second characters representing an integer N+1 (Karren, in paragraph 0138 discloses integer attribute and incrimination of attribute by 1 “The Version attribute may just an integer and may be incremented by 1. In an example, the changed JSON file along with the new Version may be stated as 2 as follows: “Version”: 2,”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of symbol/integer as version information of Karren into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao to produce an expected result of expressing version information by incrementing numeric characters. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to assign version information easily by an attribute with an incrementing property(Karren, para 0138).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 8 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the first symbol comprises one or more first characters representing an integer N, and wherein the second symbol comprises one or more second characters representing an integer N+1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Karren teaches wherein the first symbol comprises one or more first characters representing an integer N, and wherein the second symbol comprises one or more second characters representing an integer N+1 (Karren, in paragraph 0138 discloses integer attribute and incrimination of attribute by 1 “The Version attribute may just an integer and may be incremented by 1. In an example, the changed JSON file along with the new Version may be stated as 2 as follows: “Version”: 2,”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of symbol/integer as version information of Karren into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao to produce an expected result of expressing version information by incrementing numeric characters. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to assign version information easily by an attribute with an incrementing property(Karren, para 0138).
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 15 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the first symbol comprises one or more first characters representing an integer N, and wherein second characters representing an integer N+1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Karren teaches wherein the first symbol comprises one or more first characters representing an integer N, and wherein second characters representing an integer N+1 (Karren, in paragraph 0138 discloses integer attribute and incrimination of attribute by 1 “The Version attribute may just an integer and may be incremented by 1. In an example, the changed JSON file along with the new Version may be stated as 2 as follows: “Version”: 2,”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of symbol/integer as version information of Karren into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao to produce an expected result of expressing version information by incrementing numeric characters. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to assign version information easily by an attribute with an incrementing property(Karren, para 0138).
Claim 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipchuk, Maor et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140075029), hereafter, referred to as “Lipchuk”, in view of Thind, Ravinder et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060117135), hereafter, referred to as “Thind”, in view of Hocker, Michael (US Patent No. US 9411576) hereafter referred to as “Hocker”, in view of Piao, Cong-zhu (Chinese Patent Document CN 105938418) hereafter referred to as “Piao”, in further view of Ismail, Labeeb (PGPUB Document No. 20050193023), hereafter, referred to as “Ismail”.
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the quota capability also associates quota attributes with one or more volumes of the distributed file system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Ismail teaches wherein the quota capability also associates quota attributes with one or more volumes of the distributed file system (Ismail, paragraph 0032 discloses quota attributes associated with file system volume “The Volume Manager VM is a module that maintains information about various quotas and reservations for space management. In one embodiment, the Volume Manager enforces quotas by using Logical Volumes….”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of setting quota to disk volumes of Ismail into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao to produce an expected result of controlling disk volume size. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to check/control restriction of data writing by enforcing quota at a disk volume level (Ismail, para 0051).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao teach all the limitation of claim 8 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the quota capability also associates quota attributes with one or more volumes of the distributed file system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Ismail teaches wherein the quota capability also associates quota attributes with one or more volumes of the distributed file system (Ismail, paragraph 0032 discloses quota attributes associated with file system volume “The Volume Manager VM is a module that maintains information about various quotas and reservations for space management. In one embodiment, the Volume Manager enforces quotas by using Logical Volumes….”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of setting quota to disk volumes of Ismail into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind, Hocker and Piao to produce an expected result of controlling disk volume size. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to check/control restriction of data writing by enforcing quota at a disk volume level (Ismail, para 0051).
Claim 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipchuk, Maor et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140075029), hereafter, referred to as “Lipchuk”, in view of Thind, Ravinder et al (PGPUB Document No. 20060117135), hereafter, referred to as “Thind”, in view of Hocker, Michael (US Patent No. US 9411576) hereafter referred to as “Hocker”, in further of Piao, Cong-zhu (Chinese Patent Document CN 105938418) hereafter referred to as “Piao”, in further view of Fredrickson, Todd (PGPUB Document No. cc), hereafter, referred to as “Fredrickson”.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind , Hocker and Paio teach all the limitation of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein combination of the attribute name and the first symbol is a concatenation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Fredrickson teaches wherein the combination of the attribute name and the first symbol is a concatenation (Fredrickson, para 0027 discloses concatenation of attributes “for contributes variability string attributes can be concatenated resolving embedded commands for dependent text or merging text fragments such as descriptions for content elements.”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of expressing attributes by concatenating strings of Fredrickson into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind , Hocker and Paio to produce an expected result of expressing attribute in a descriptive manner. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to easy recognition attributes by their description.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind , Hocker and Paio teach all the limitation of claim 8 but don’t explicitly teach wherein combination of the attribute name and the first symbol is a concatenation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Fredrickson teaches wherein the combination of the attribute name and the first symbol is a concatenation (Fredrickson, para 0027 discloses concatenation of attributes “for contributes variability string attributes can be concatenated resolving embedded commands for dependent text or merging text fragments such as descriptions for content elements.”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of expressing attributes by concatenating strings of Fredrickson into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind , Hocker and Paio to produce an expected result of expressing attribute in a descriptive manner. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to easy recognition attributes by their description.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Lipchuk, Thind , Hocker and Paio teach all the limitation of claim 15 but don’t explicitly teach wherein combination of the attribute name and the first symbol is a concatenation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of s quota management of a file system Fredrickson teaches wherein the combination of the attribute name and the first symbol is a concatenation (Fredrickson, para 0027 discloses concatenation of attributes “for contributes variability string attributes can be concatenated resolving embedded commands for dependent text or merging text fragments such as descriptions for content elements.”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of expressing attributes by concatenating strings of Fredrickson into the directory space quota changing process by setting attribute values using attribute name and symbol of Lipchuk, Thind , Hocker and Paio to produce an expected result of expressing attribute in a descriptive manner. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to easy recognition attributes by their description.
Response to Arguments
I. 35 U.S.C §101
§101 abstract idea rejection to claim 1-20 has been withdrawn in light of claim amendments and applicant’s argument consideration.
II. 35 U.S.C §103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/5/2025 have been fully considered but are
moot because the independent claim 1, 8 and 15 have been amended with newly added
features which applicant’s arguments are directed towards. Since claims have been amended with new features, a new ground of rejection is presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH A DAUD whose telephone number is (469)295-9283. The e