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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/12/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 9/12/25 have been fully considered with the following results:
Applicant argues that, due to at least the new amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17, no combination of references teach/disclose/suggest the amended claim language and therefore all claims are considered allowable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would first like to draw attention to various claim amendments/portions of the current claim language which are not supported by the original disclosure and will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The phrases “results including the object based on an execution of the object listing,” “performs the execution of the object listing operation,” and “listing operation comprises a read operation associated with the object” of the independent claims, as well as “a LIST operation in accordance with an S3 protocol” of claims 9, 12, and 18 (which appeared by claim amendment on 3/10/25), do not have basis within the specification and as such will be rejected under 112(a) as being new matter. For further explanation please refer to 112 rejection section below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art. For further details, please refer to 103 rejection section below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "detection component" and "readahead component" in claim 1 as well as "training component" in claim 5. These limitations appear in other dependent and independent claims, but will be interpreted the same way.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1, 10, and 16 recite: “results including the object based on an execution of an object listing,” “performs the execution of the object listing operation,” and “listing operation comprises a read operation associated with the object” which has no support within the application’s specification. Furthermore, claims 9, 12, and 18 recite “a LIST operation in accordance with an S3 protocol.” Nowhere in the specification do these terms appear. Although the specification discloses LIST requests, and training data results, the Examiner contends that the current claim language is not disclosed. Accordingly, these claims constitute new matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The claim requirements that constitute new matter should be removed.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 depend on the above claims are therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210089457), Plamondon (US 20080229025), and BenHanokh et al. (US 11782637).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Park teaches: A system / method / product comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components (memory par. 0039); and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (processor par. 0039), wherein the computer executable components comprise: a detection component (through PG readahead indicator and prefetching control mechanism par. 0041 - 0042) that, based on data from a load balancer of an object storage system (based on data from KV system 100 par. 0048), determines a trigger to perform a readahead of an object at the object storage system prior to receipt of a request related to the object (accessing prefetching-trigger key from prefetching read-ahead buffer par. 0007); and a readahead component that, based on the trigger, executes the readahead of the object (execution of KV system to fetch read value from read-ahead buffer in KV driver par. 0051).
Although Park does not explicitly teach the KV system comprising a “readahead component” or a “load balancer” by name, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application that since the KV system handles load balancing and readahead mechanics (KV system resolving system resource related issues par. 0046 and providing communication/connectivity between KV system and user application par. 0056) , that it would comprise components that function in the same ways as the claimed invention.
Park does not explicitly teach object listings which identify the objects.
However, Plamondon teaches: wherein the data comprises an object listing that identifies the object (object stored in cache includes tags or other identifiers that when communicated identify the specified object par. 0063 and 0005 – 0008);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park with the teachings of Plamondon since the object identifiers provide validity checking as well as determining availability of the network bandwidth to obtain the specific object (Plamondon: par. 0043 and 0060).
Neither Park nor Plamondon teach object listing comprising results and read operations, as well as storage controllers.
However, BenHanokh teaches: Wherein the object listing comprises results including the object based on an execution of an object listing operation requested by a client (objects/shards of objects are stored in a storage system with metadata that can be retrieved through a read-request, thereby allowing for transmission/production of metadata relating to the shard/object Col. 1 Line 56 – Col. 3 Line 36), wherein one or more storage controllers of the object storage system performs the execution of the object listing operation (the storage system includes a gateway and storage nodes which are communicatively coupled with the gateway using cloud resources, a computing device, such as one operating any of the nodes, executes software which can cause the computing device/node to perform various storage related tasks Col. 2 Lines 49 – 67), and wherein the object listing operation comprises a read operation associated with the object (a received request by the node could be a read request for the data shard Col. 2 Lines 3 – 18);
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park and Plamondon with the teachings of BenHanokh since the storage system as outlined in BenHanokh would enhance the teachings of Park and Plamondon by prioritizing prefetching requests for nodes to more efficiently use node caches for metadata relating to objects/shards.
Regarding claim 3, Plamondon teaches: wherein the load balancer performs the execution of the object listing operation (operation condition detector acting as a load-balancer on the device in which execution has been initiated par. 0106 – 0107 and 0623)
Although not explicitly stated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since the device executing the object listing operation contains a load balancer that the load balancer would be able to be the component performing the execution.
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh, further in view of Shetty et al. (US 9135269).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17, Shetty teaches: wherein the object listing operation further comprises one or more of a head operation, a put operation, and a delete operation (each storage node service is an HTTP server exposing an interface that responds to requests for getting, putting, and deleting objects Col. 11 Lines 32 – 39)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh with the teachings of Shetty since the cloud-based object storage system of Shetty enhances the prior teachings by allowing record based object storing as well as allowing for various responses to various requests through the object interface.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Shetty teaches: wherein one or more storage controllers of the object storage system performs a write operation associated with the object at the object storage system prior to the execution of the object listing operation (cloud application servers provide a variety of object store services, including writing operations associated with objects using a plurality of filers Col. 10 Lines 6 – 19)
For motivation to combine see claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh Plamondon in view of Desai (US 10592351).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 20, Desai teaches: a training component that trains the detection component based on historical data defining access behavior to the object storage system from the load balancer (use of historical data reads or I/Os used in the APD algorithm Col. 2 Lines 33 – 64), and wherein the historical data comprises data from plural nodes of the object storage system (based on data from historical applications/clients Col. 2 Lines 33 – 64 and Col. 4 Lines 10 – 26).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh with the teachings of Desai since the read-ahead mechanism as described in Desai leverages binomial probability distribution to determine when a read-ahead cache should be enabled to improve the efficiency of data restoration processes (Desai: Col. 2 Lines 27 – 64).
Regarding claim 7, Desai teaches: wherein the readahead component performs the readahead across plural nodes of the object storage system (performing readahead across client applications/storages Col. 5 Lines 4 – 25).
For motivation to combine see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, Desai teaches: wherein the detection component (use of an Access Pattern Detection algorithm Col. 12 Lines 37 - 46) comprises or accesses a machine learning model to perform the determination (use of machine learning model using the data set Col. 12 Lines 38 – 58).
For motivation to combine see claim 5 above
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh in view of Gschwind et al. (US 20190087317).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Gschwind teaches: wherein the readahead component delays execution of the readahead of the object for a duration based on a pattern of use of one or more of the object storage system and the object identifiable from the data from the load balancer (prefetch request delayed based on one or more conditions of a local processor, a prediction occurs determining whether a given prefetch request is to cause a conflict during execution, because of this, a delay is executed before the prefetch is performed, this duration is determined by conditions relating to local and/or remote processors. See claim 7 and par. 0230 – 0235).
While it does not explicitly state that the delay is based upon data from a load balancer, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the load balancer of Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh could be enhanced through the capabilities of requesting delays since the delay of the prefetching results in less memory transaction conflicts par. 0230 – 0235). The Examiner would like to note that given the BRI of the claim language, the prediction that is outlined within Gschwind could reasonably be assumed to be based on various patterns relating to processor conditions. The BRI of the language “pattern of use of one or more of the object storage system” could encompass the idea of current instructions executed per cycle being at a point where the processor can predict, based off utilization guidelines, that a delay is necessary. Therefore, the Examiner believes that the BRI of the current claim language is taught/disclosed/suggested by Gschwind. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park and Plamondon with the teachings of Gschwind since the delaying aspect of Gschwind depends on conditions of a local processor, such as CPU utilization, cache utilization, and number of queued workloads, thereby allowing for conflict suppression (Gschwind: par. 0231).
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh in view of Moghe et al. (US 20230315338).
Regarding claim 9, Moghe teaches: wherein the object listing operation comprises a LIST operation in accordance with an S3 protocol (load balancer employed to provide data access requests/transactions using S3 protocols, in which ordered list of names to object IDs, thereby utilizing listing operations through the S3 protocol par. 0027 – 0031).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh with the teachings of Moghe since the S3 protocol of Moghe provides coherent access to unstructured data across different data access protocols, including S3, and having different logical constructs, such as objects (Moghe: par. 0008).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Plamondon teaches: wherein the load balancer performs the execution of the object listing operation (operation condition detector acting as a load-balancer on the device in which execution has been initiated par. 0106 – 0107 and 0623)
Although not explicitly stated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since the device executing the object listing operation contains a load balancer that the load balancer would be able to be the component performing the execution.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park with the teachings of Plamondon since the object identifiers provide validity checking as well as determining availability of the network bandwidth to obtain the specific object (Plamondon: par. 0043 and 0060).
Plamondon does not explicitly teach S3 operations.
However, Moghe teaches: wherein the object listing operation comprises an S3 LIST operation (load balancer employed to provide data access requests/transactions using S3 protocols, in which ordered list of names to object IDs, thereby utilizing listing operations through the S3 protocol par. 0027 – 0031)
For motivation to combine see claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh in view of Sikdar (US 20160124462).
Regarding claim 8 Sikdar teaches: wherein the object storage system (storage access layer par. 0065) is configured to move the object over plural nodes of the object storage system over a life of the object at the object storage system (moving data associated with clients into remote disks and/or cloud storage on resource node par. 0065 in cluster of resource nodes fig. 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Park, Plamondon, and BenHanokh with the teachings of Sikdar since the teachings of Sikdar provide extended features and capabilities of storage systems such as read-ahead, redundancy, quality of service levels, as well as dynamically adding storage and moving data associated with clients (Sikdar: par. 0025 and 0065).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN SCOTT MOTTER whose telephone number is (703)756-1550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached at 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198