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 Arguments
101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2025 regarding 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Amended claim 1 clearly integrates the claimed subject matter into a specific, practical application-namely, a structured access data storage control architecture that performs active, policy-driven triage and placement of access data within memory-constrained environments. This directly addresses and overcomes the Office's position that the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's eligibility framework, the claim is not abstract because it recites a real-time, rule-based control process that governs system-level storage decisions-specifically, what access data is stored, and where based on operational constraints (e.g., memory availability) and classification logic (e.g., metadata groups)”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that the amended limitations are the following in claim 1:
-“an access data boxes structure residing in the digital memory, defining at least two access data boxes, each access data box implemented as a discrete digital storage container” which is an additional element and is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
- "(a) identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label" recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. The “wherein” clause only describes that the stored data is distinct from the access data and the access data is defined in reference to the stored data and the stored data has metadata label. The “wherein” clause does not add any additional functionalities. The identifying of access data which is different than the stored data and has a reference to the stored data and the stored data which has a metadata label, can be done by mental evaluation and judgment of the data.
-"(e) based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). This limitation of the claim recites mere data gathering based on available capacity of the usage and rules and does not integrate into a practical application and is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner cites that the amended limitations are the following in claim 6:
- “identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. The “wherein” clause only describes that the stored data is distinct from the access data and the access data is defined in reference to the stored data and the stored data has metadata label. The “wherein” clause does not add any additional functionalities. The identifying of access data which is different than the stored data and has a reference to the stored data and the stored data which has a metadata label, can be done by mental evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“wherein an access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-"based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules, metadata group priority constraints, and access data type thresholds, storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). This limitation of the claim recites mere data gathering based on available capacity of the usage and rules and does not integrate into a practical application and is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“wherein the available capacity usage policy enforces access data storage limitations in accordance with at least one of a regulatory compliance rule, a breach investigation preservation rule, or a data retention period rule" is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner cites that the amended limitations are the following in claim 16:
- "identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label" recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. The “wherein” clause only describes that the stored data is distinct from the access data and the access data is defined in reference to the stored data and the stored data has metadata label. The “wherein” clause does not add any additional functionalities. The identifying of access data which is different than the stored data and has a reference to the stored data and the stored data which has a metadata label, can be done by mental evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). This limitation of the claim recites mere data gathering based on available capacity of the usage and rules and does not integrate into a practical application and is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Under Step 2B, amended claim 1 recites an inventive concept that is neither conventional nor routine. Traditional logging systems indiscriminately capture access data and rely on downstream filtering, as discussed at 11[0004], [0024], [0027], resulting in inefficiencies, compliance challenges, and excess data accumulation. In contrast, the present invention implements structured access data management at the point of ingestion, governed by capacity- aware usage policies and enforced through system-level control logic…….. The structured architecture, the technical constraints, and the specific operational logic integrate any abstract idea into a practical application and provide significantly more. Claims 6 and 16 are similarly amended and are therefore also patent eligible due to similar rationale, along with claims 2-5, 7-15, and 17-20 due to their dependency from an otherwise allowable base claim. Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is respectfully requested”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that the amended additional elements in claims is insignificant extra solution activity in claim 1 “-"(e) based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" and in claim 6 “based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules, metadata group priority constraints, and access data type thresholds, storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box" and in claim 16, “"based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" are well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Detailed explanation is cited below in the 101 sections.
103 Rejections:
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 6 that that Prahlad and Ein-Gill do not teach “identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label” and “choosing an access data box from among at least two access data boxes, wherein an access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure” and “based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules, metadata group priority constraints, and access data type thresholds, allowing or denying placement in the access data box of storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box, wherein the available capacity”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Prahlad teaches the limitation “choosing an access data box from among at least two access data boxes, wherein an access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure” in paragraphs [0222, the system may review the historical performance achieved by various target cloud storage sites 115A-N to determine which sites have historically achieved the desired performance metrics mandated by a storage policy. Additionally, the system may select a cloud storage site that has better historical performance than other sites], each cloud storage (access data box) is distinct from each other and they are defined within a memory structure); which describes that each storage is separated from each other and storage is defined in a memory structure. Paragraph [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; describes that storage is selected based on the type of files.
Prahlad also teaches “based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules, metadata group priority constraints, and access data type thresholds, allowing or denying placement in the access data box of storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box, wherein the available capacity” in paragraph [0063, a storage policy may indicate that certain data is to be stored in the storage device 115, retained for a specified period of time before being aged to another tier of secondary storage, copied to the storage device 115 using a specified number of data streams], which describes that each tiered storage has its own retention policies.
Paragraphs [0070, A provisioning policy is a set of preferences, priorities, rules and/or criteria that specify how various clients 130 (or groups of clients 130, e.g., a group of clients 130 associated with a department) may utilize various system resources, including resources such as available storage on cloud storage sites]; [0071, A cost policy is a set of preferences, priorities, rules and/or criteria that specify how to identify suitable storage locations, including suitable cloud storage locations. For example, a cost policy may describe the method of evaluating a cost function, as described in greater detail herein with respect to FIG. 27. Here again, if a client exceeds the policy, then a budget for that client/department may be charged for excess storage or resource allocation], which describes that priorities are associated with client groups (metadata groups).
Paragraphs [0122, cloud storage submodule 236 may determine if the file system request relates to a set of data exceeding the buffer size (or another threshold size). If the related set of data is larger than the threshold size], [0151, store a number of files above a certain threshold without experiencing significant system degradation (which can be defined in numerous ways], [0207, For a number of contiguous blocks (e.g., a threshold number of contiguous blocks, such as three contiguous blocks) for which the corresponding entries in the container index file 812], describes each data storage has a threshold. Therefore, Prahlad teaches the above cited limitation.
Ein-Gill teaches “identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label” in paragraphs [0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; [0092, accessing content corresponding to a task (e.g., a user's email account information and credentials enabling an email message to be accessed, identified, and loaded into a second user session)]; which describes that the previous access or request to context data (access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data) are identified and the context data (stored data) is distinct from the access data, i.e. request data for accessing a context data.
Paragraph [0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; describes that the current user session (access data) is associated with a specific context data, therefore, the access data is defined in reference to the store data.
Therefore, Prahlad in combination with Ein-Gill teaches the above cited limitation.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 16 that Prahlad and Ein-Gill do not teach “identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label” and “based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Prahlad teaches the limitation “based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule” in paragraphs [0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group]; [0344, the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage], [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; which describes that based on the available capacity and storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage (managing placement) of the data in the storage in accordance with a retention policy (rule). The retention policy maps to a storage.
And Ein Gill teaches “identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label” in paragraphs [0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; [0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; [0092, accessing content corresponding to a task (e.g., a user's email account information and credentials enabling an email message to be accessed, identified, and loaded into a second user session)]; which describes that the previous access or request to context data (access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data) are identified and the context data (stored data) is distinct from the access data, i.e. request data for accessing a context data. Paragraphs [0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; describes that the current user session (access data) is associated with a specific context data, therefore, the access data is defined in reference to the store data.
Therefore, Prahlad and Ein-Gill in combination teaches the above cited limitation.
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 claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules” which is ambiguous because “tiered retention rules” can be interpreted in multiple ways. “Tiered retention rules” can be interpreted as retention rules are tiered or each storage tier is associated with a retention policy. For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as each storage tier is associated with a retention policy.
Claims 7-15 depends from claim 6 and they suffer the same deficiency as claim 6 and they are likewise rejected.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule” is ambiguous because the claim does not describe any mapping structure i.e. what is a mapping structure and what does it map. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of the examination “the mapping structure” is interpreted as mapping the metadata groups with one of the rules.
Claims 17-20 depends from claim 16 and they suffer the same deficiency as claim 16 and they are likewise rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the mapping structure" in limitation “within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “a mapping structure” in the previous steps of the claims.
Claims 17-20 depends from claim 16 and they suffer the same deficiency as claim 16 and they are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claim 1:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "computing system" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- "(a) identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label" recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. The “wherein” clause only describes that the stored data is distinct from the access data and the access data is defined in reference to the stored data and the stored data has metadata label. The “wherein” clause does not add any additional functionalities. The identifying of access data which is different than the stored data and has a reference to the stored data and the stored data which has a metadata label, can be done by mental evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“(b) selecting a particular metadata group based on at least the metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement of the metadata label.
-“(c) choosing a particular access data box based on at least the mapping and the particular metadata group” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement based on the mapping of the particular metadata group.
-“(d) ascertaining an available capacity of the particular access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can determine (ascertain) available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a digital memory”, “a processor in operable communication with the digital memory, the processor configured to execute access data storage management”, which are a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“a metadata groups structure residing in the digital memory and defining at least two metadata groups, each metadata group including at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“an access data boxes structure residing in the digital memory, defining at least two access data boxes, each access data box implemented as a discrete digital storage container” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“a mapping structure residing in the digital memory, the mapping structure representing a mapping between the metadata groups structure and the access data boxes structure, the mapping structure including an available capacity usage policy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-"(e) based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-"(e) based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “the metadata groups belong to a metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“or the access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
- “and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; geographic location labels; time interval labels; identity labels; or user agent labels”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) .
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 4:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the access data includes at least one of the following: audit trail data; access log data; event log data; antivirus log data; firewall log data; web filter log data; server access log data; proxy log data; activity log data; authentication event data; or resource access event data” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 5:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “wherein less than one percent of the access data satisfies any of the following data characterizations: executable code; source code; error log data; or data which was generated by activity other than an attempt to access stored data” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 6 :
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "method" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- “identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. The “wherein” clause only describes that the stored data is distinct from the access data and the access data is defined in reference to the stored data and the stored data has metadata label. The “wherein” clause does not add any additional functionalities. The identifying of access data which is different than the stored data and has a reference to the stored data and the stored data which has a metadata label, can be done by mental evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“selecting a metadata group for the identified access data, the metadata group being selected from among at least two metadata groups, the selecting based on at least the metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement from metadata groups based on metadata labels.
-“choosing an access data box from among at least two access data boxes, the choosing based on at least the metadata group;” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement.
-“ascertaining an available capacity of the particular access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can ascertaining and available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“access data storage management method, the method executed by a computing system”, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“wherein an access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-"based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules, metadata group priority constraints, and access data type thresholds, storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein the available capacity usage policy enforces access data storage limitations in accordance with at least one of a regulatory compliance rule, a breach investigation preservation rule, or a data retention period rule" is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules, metadata group priority constraints, and access data type thresholds, storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box" is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363.,
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “wherein: the metadata groups include a first metadata group and a second metadata group, the first metadata group ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“the access data boxes include a first access data box and a second access data box, the first access data box ranked above the second access data box in an access data box hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“then the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the second access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“and then the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the second access data box” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein: the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box until the respective access data box has a zero available capacity” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“the method operates to deny placement of access data in any non- respective access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein: the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box until the respective access data box has a zero available capacity” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“the method operates to deny placement of access data in any non- respective access data box” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the available capacity is ascertained for only a specified period of time” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 10:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide.
-“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “wherein: the metadata groups include a first metadata group and a second metadata group, the first metadata group ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“the access data boxes include a first access data box and a second access data box, the first access data box ranked above the second access data box in an access data box hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and then the method operates to deny placement of access data of the first metadata group in any other access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“and then the method operates to deny placement of access data of the first metadata group in any other access data box” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- “scanning a resource which includes data content” which is a mental process because human mind can look at the data (scanning) which includes data content by evolution and judgment of the data.
-“classifying the resource according to the data content” recites a mental process because human mind can classify data by evaluation and judgement.
-“identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access the resource” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data by evaluation and judgement.
-“selecting a particular metadata group for the identified access data, the selecting based on at least the particular metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement.
-“choosing a particular access data box based on at least the particular metadata group” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement.
-“ascertaining the available capacity of the chosen access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can ascertaining and available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as “obtaining data”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-"based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, allowing or denying placement of at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box" is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-"based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, allowing or denying placement of at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box" is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the available capacity is measured in at least one of the following: a count of bytes of storage; a percentage; a count of access data events; or a financial measure of storage cost” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 15:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “wherein the available capacity policy is characterized by at least one of the following:
access data associated with a given metadata label is only allowed to be stored in an access data box which is also associated with the given metadata label” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“metadata labels are arranged in a metadata label hierarchy; instances of access data are arranged hierarchically; or access data boxes are arranged hierarchically”, is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the available capacity policy is characterized by at least one of the following: access data associated with a given metadata label is only allowed to be stored in an access data box which is also associated with the given metadata label” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "computer-readable storage device" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- "identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label" recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. The “wherein” clause only describes that the stored data is distinct from the access data and the access data is defined in reference to the stored data and the stored data has metadata label. The “wherein” clause does not add any additional functionalities. The identifying of access data which is different than the stored data and has a reference to the stored data and the stored data which has a metadata label, can be done by mental evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“selecting a particular metadata group based on at least the metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement.
-“choosing a particular access data box based on at least the mapping and the particular metadata group” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement.
-“ascertaining an available capacity of the particular access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can ascertaining and available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a computer-readable storage device configured with data and instructions which upon execution by a processor cause a computing system to perform an access data storage management method” which are a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-"based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
-“wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time or” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide.
-“wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time or” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
-“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; or identity labels” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 19:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the metadata groups belong to a metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6, 14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of
With respect to claim 6, Prahlad teaches an access data storage management method, the method executed by a computing system, the method comprising ([0054, general context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a general-purpose computer], [0055, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices]; examiner’s note: the memory storage devices and the instructions are executed by the processor):
selecting a metadata group for the identified data, the metadata group being selected from among at least two metadata groups ([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the logical/object groups (a metadata group) is selected from multiple types of metadata groups, i,e, email groups, created by same application groups, similar retention policy groups etc.),
choosing an access data box from among at least two access data boxes ([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group]; [0344, the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage], [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: determining (selecting) a storage device (access data box) based on the selected groups of objects (metadata group)), wherein an access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure, the choosing based on at least the metadata group ([0222, the system may review the historical performance achieved by various target cloud storage sites 115A-N to determine which sites have historically achieved the desired performance metrics mandated by a storage policy. Additionally, the system may select a cloud storage site that has better historical performance than other sites], each cloud storage (access data box) is distinct from each other and they are defined within a memory structure); examiner’s note: each storage is separated from each other and storage is defined in a memory structure; [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: storage is selected based on the type of files);
ascertaining an available capacity of the chosen access data box ([0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the system queries the index and checks available capacity (ascertaining an available capacity) and selects a storage device (access data box) which has the available capacity); and
based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy comprising tiered retention rules ([0063, a storage policy may indicate that certain data is to be stored in the storage device 115, retained for a specified period of time before being aged to another tier of secondary storage, copied to the storage device 115 using a specified number of data streams], examiner’s note: each tiered storage has its own retention policies), metadata group priority constraints ([0070, A provisioning policy is a set of preferences, priorities, rules and/or criteria that specify how various clients 130 (or groups of clients 130, e.g., a group of clients 130 associated with a department) may utilize various system resources, including resources such as available storage on cloud storage sites]; [0071, A cost policy is a set of preferences, priorities, rules and/or criteria that specify how to identify suitable storage locations, including suitable cloud storage locations. For example, a cost policy may describe the method of evaluating a cost function, as described in greater detail herein with respect to FIG. 27. Here again, if a client exceeds the policy, then a budget for that client/department may be charged for excess storage or resource allocation], examiner’s note: the priories of groups of clients), and access data type thresholds ([0122, cloud storage submodule 236 may determine if the file system request relates to a set of data exceeding the buffer size (or another threshold size). If the related set of data is larger than the threshold size], [0151, store a number of files above a certain threshold without experiencing significant system degradation (which can be defined in numerous ways], [0207, For a number of contiguous blocks (e.g., a threshold number of contiguous blocks, such as three contiguous blocks) for which the corresponding entries in the container index file 812], examiner’s note: the threshold of storage for data (access data type)), storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box, wherein the available capacity usage policy enforces access data storage limitations in accordance with at least one of a regulatory compliance rule, a breach investigation preservation rule, or a data retention period rule (fig. 27, 28, [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group], [0344, The system may first utilize the storage policy,….the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage.], [0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group]) examiner’s note: based on the available capacity and storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage in accordance with a retention policy (rule). The retention policy maps to a storage).
Prahlad does not explicitly teach access data, identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label.
However, Ein-Gil teaches access data ([0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; examiner’s note: the previous access or requests of context data (access data)),
identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data ([0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; [0092, accessing content corresponding to a task (e.g., a user's email account information and credentials enabling an email message to be accessed, identified, and loaded into a second user session)]; examiner’s note: the previous access or request to context data (access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data) are identified and the context data (stored data) is distinct from the access data, i.e. request data for accessing a context data) and [0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; examiner’s note: current user session (access data) is associated with a specific context data, therefore, the access data is defined in reference to the store data), the stored data associated with at least one metadata label (fig. 3, 310; [0028, where the task is reading email, an email schema may be utilized that identifies specific aspects of context data to monitor and/or store, such as an identification of the current email message that the user is viewing, an offset indicating the position within the email message that the user has read to or viewed, and an email account identifier or data source of the email message]; examiner’s note: the email message has an email ID (metadata label)); the selecting based on at least the metadata label ([0028, Specific aspects of the context data to be stored may be identified according to a schema corresponding to a particular task being carried out on the user device. For example, where the task is reading email, an email schema may be utilized that identifies specific aspects of context data to monitor and/or store]; [0114, context monitor 256 may determine an appropriate schema based on an analysis of contextual information and user settings associated with the current user session and the available schemas, and select the most appropriate schema(s) to use]; [0115, for the task of reading email (e.g., providing email content for the user), context monitor 256 (or operating system 251, or the email application 252 or service 254, or another service) may determine data elements that represent a context associated with the task of reading email]; examiner’s note: the schema (metadata group) is selected based on the context information which includes email ID, message ID (metadata label));
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. access data, identifying attempts to access data, metadata groups associated with metadata label and selecting based on the metadata label of Ein-Gil into Prahlad to have access data, and identifying access data to have multiple types of data organization and also to have metadata group labels and to select metadata groups based on the label.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Ein-Gil into the system of Prahlad to have an efficient system. Prahlad and Ein-Gill are analogous art because both teach grouping data and transferring data. The motivation would be to have multiple types of data and organizing different types of data with a label to identify the types of data faster and also to selecting a data group based on the label to select the most appropriate groups of data faster to save time (Ein-Gil, [0016, These advances often provide advantages such as improved security, specialization, efficiency]).
With respect to claim 14, Prahlad and Ein-Gill in combination teach the computer-readable storage device of claim 6, Prahlad teaches wherein the available capacity is measured in at least one of the following: a count of bytes of storage; a percentage; a count of access data events; or a financial measure of storage cost ([0104, the system may calculate data costing information and other information including information associated with the cost of storing], [0347, the system may obtain estimated storage costs for one or more cloud storage sites by sending similar requests for quotes to one or more third-party sites], examiner’s note: storage cost is quoted).
Claim(s) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099).
With respect to claim 16, Prahalad teaches a computer-readable storage device configured with data and instructions which upon execution by a processor cause a computing system to perform an access data storage management method ([0055, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices]; examiner’s note: the memory storage devices), the method comprising:
selecting a metadata group for the identified access data, the metadata group being selected from among at least two metadata groups ([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the logical/object groups (a particular metadata group) is selected to transfer the data to a storage);
choosing an access data box from among at least two access data boxes, the choosing based on at least the metadata group ([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group]; [0344, the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage], [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: determining (selecting) a storage device (access data box) based on the selected groups of objects (metadata group));
ascertaining an available capacity of the chosen data box (([0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the system queries the index and checks available capacity (ascertaining an available capacity) and selects a storage device (access data box) which has the available capacity); and
based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, managing placement in the access data box of at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule ([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group]; [0344, the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage], [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: based on the available capacity and storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage (managing placement) of the data in the storage in accordance with a retention policy (rule). The retention policy maps to a storage).
Prahlad does not explicitly teach access data, identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label.
However, Ein-Gil teaches access data ([0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; examiner’s note: the previous access or requests of context data (access data)),
identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data ([0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; [0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; [0092, accessing content corresponding to a task (e.g., a user's email account information and credentials enabling an email message to be accessed, identified, and loaded into a second user session)]; examiner’s note: the previous access or request to context data (access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data) are identified and the context data (stored data) is distinct from the access data, i.e. request data for accessing a context data), the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and ([0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; examiner’s note: current user session (access data) is associated with a specific context data, therefore, the access data is defined in reference to the store data);
the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label(fig. 3, 310; [0028, where the task is reading email, an email schema may be utilized that identifies specific aspects of context data to monitor and/or store, such as an identification of the current email message that the user is viewing, an offset indicating the position within the email message that the user has read to or viewed, and an email account identifier or data source of the email message]; examiner’s note: the email message has an email ID (metadata label)); the selecting based on at least the metadata label ([0028, Specific aspects of the context data to be stored may be identified according to a schema corresponding to a particular task being carried out on the user device. For example, where the task is reading email, an email schema may be utilized that identifies specific aspects of context data to monitor and/or store]; [0114, context monitor 256 may determine an appropriate schema based on an analysis of contextual information and user settings associated with the current user session and the available schemas, and select the most appropriate schema(s) to use]; [0115, for the task of reading email (e.g., providing email content for the user), context monitor 256 (or operating system 251, or the email application 252 or service 254, or another service) may determine data elements that represent a context associated with the task of reading email]; examiner’s note: the schema (metadata group) is selected based on the context information which includes email ID, message ID (metadata label)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. access data, identifying attempts to access data, metadata groups associated with metadata label and selecting based on the metadata label of Ein-Gil into Prahlad to have access data, and identifying access data to have multiple types of data organization and also to have metadata group labels and to select metadata groups based on the label.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Ein-Gil into the system of Prahlad to have an efficient system. Prahlad and Ein-Gill are analogous art because both teach grouping data and transferring data. The motivation would be to have multiple types of data and organizing different types of data with a label to identify the types of data faster and also to selecting a data group based on the label to select the most appropriate groups of data faster to save time (Ein-Gil, [0016, These advances often provide advantages such as improved security, specialization, efficiency]).
With respect to claim 18, Prahlad and Ein-Gill in combination teach the computer-readable storage device of claim 16, Prahlad does not explicitly teach wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; or identity labels.
However, Ein-Gill teaches wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; or identity labels (fig. 3, [0115, an email account ID identifying the source of the email content]; examiner’s note: the email account ID is the identity labels because email account ID is associated with a user/entity).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. identity labels of Ein-Gil into Prahlad to identify data/users/entities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Ein-Gil into the system of Prahlad to have robust system. Prahlad and Ein-Gill are analogous art because both teach grouping data and transferring data. The motivation would be to have identity labels to identify user/data faster to make the system more efficient (Ein-Gil, [0016, These advances often provide advantages such as improved security, specialization, efficiency]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Nagai (US 2014/0075097).
With respect to claim 8, Prahlad, Ein-Gill in combination teach the method of claim 6, Prahlad teaches wherein: the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box; and the method operates to deny placement of access data in any non- respective access data box (fig. 27, 28, [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group], [0344, The system may first utilize the storage policy,….the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage.], [0345, determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects], [0363, The process 2800 begins at block 2805, when the auction service determines the current system capacity]; examiner’s note: based on the available capacity and storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage (allowing placement or if the storage policy does not comply the data is not stored (denying)).
Prahlad and Ein-Gill do not explicitly teach the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box until the respective access data box has a zero available capacity
However, Nagai teaches the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box until the respective access data box has a zero available capacity ([0088, When the remaining capacity is zero or lower than the predetermined value, writing is determined to be impossible and recording may be interrupted before a write command is issued to the SSD 100.]; examiner’s note: the data is placed in a storage (access data box) until the capacity reaches zero). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. placing data until the capacity reaches zero of Nagai into Prahlad/Ein-Gil to place data into a storage box until the capacity becomes zero.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Nagai into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have robust system. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Nagai are analogous art because all the arts teach storing data into a storage. The motivation would be to efficiently use the storage space to make the system faster and also to save cost of the system (Nagai [0113, A larger amount of data can be more efficiently processed with one command also in the SSD, thereby increasing the processing speed]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Certain et al. (US 2014/0180862).
With respect to claim 9, Prahlad, Ein-Gill in combination teach the method of claim 6, but do not in combination explicitly teach wherein the available capacity is ascertained for only a specified period of time.
However, Certain teaches wherein the available capacity is ascertained for only a specified period of time ([0022, wherein a customer is guaranteed to get a certain amount of time (e.g., twenty minutes or an hour) every day with at least one resource guarantee], [0023, a private pool of excess resource capacity of one or more resource capacity types can be maintained for, and associated with, a customer user]; examiner’s note: each user is associated with an available capacity for a specified period of time i.e. twenty minutes or an hour).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. assigning available capacity for a certain period of time of Certain into Prahlad/Ein-Gil to assign available capacity of storage for a specified period of time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Certain into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have a system which will provide better organization of storage capacity. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Certain are analogous art because all the arts teach storing data into a storage. The motivation would be to organize storage more efficiently to make the system faster and also to save cost of the system (Certain, [0059, to receive improved performance], [0117, processing of request B is allowed to complete more efficiently and quickly]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Pachikov et al. (US 10614688).
With respect to claim 10, Prahlad, Ein-Gill in combination teach the method of claim 6, Prahlad further teaches an available capacity of an access data box ([0345, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the storage (access data box) capacity).
Prahland and Ein-Gill do not in combination explicitly teach issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time.
However, Pachikov teaches issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time (col. 1, lines 40-45, “continuously monitoring the object in response to the object being greater than a pre-determined size and the risk level exceeding a first predetermined threshold in a first predetermined amount of time”; examiner’s note: the alert (issuing a notifications) when the size (available capacity) remains above a threshold for a predetermined amount of time; moreover, Prahlad teaches an available capacity of access box in para. [0345]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. issuing notification when the capacity remains above a predetermined threshold for a predefined period of time of Pachikov into Prahlad/Ein-Gil to send notifications when the capacity remains above a threshold for a predefined period of time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Pachikov into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have a system which will notify when needed. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Pachikov are analogous art because all the arts teach storing data into a storage. The motivation would be to notify the system when the available capacity reaches a threshold to have proactive storage management and to optimized systems performance (Pachikov, col. 1, lines 40-45, “continuously monitoring the object in response to the object being greater than a pre-determined size and the risk level exceeding a first predetermined threshold in a first predetermined amount of time”).
Claim(s) 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Nazari et al. (US 2018/0267714).
With respect to claim 11, Prahlad, Ein-Gill in combination teach the method of claim 6, but do not in combination explicitly teach further comprising issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold.
However, Nazari teaches issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold ([0029, An alerting unit 326 may alert the storage array when a threshold capacity limit of a drive has been reached]; examiner’s note: an alert is generated when the threshold capacity is reached).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. alerting when the available capacity reaches a predefined threshold of Nazari into Prahlad/Ein-Gill to issue an alert when the capacity reaches a threshold to notify the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Nazari into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have a system issue notification when the storage reaches a threshold. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Nazari are analogous art because all of them teach storing data. The motivation would be to notify the system when the available capacity reaches a threshold to have proactive storage management and to optimized systems performance ([0010, These techniques may result in better utilization of memory resources]).
With respect to claim 17, Prahlad and Ein-Gill in combination teach the computer-readable storage device of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time; or issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold.
However, Nazari teaches wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time; or issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold ([0029, An alerting unit 326 may alert the storage array when a threshold capacity limit of a drive has been reached]; examiner’s note: an alert is generated when the threshold capacity is reached).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. alerting when the available capacity reaches a predefined threshold of Nazari into Prahlad/Ein-Gill to issue an alert when the capacity reaches a threshold to notify the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Nazari into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have a system issue notification when the storage reaches a threshold. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Nazari are analogous art because all of them teach storing data. The motivation would be to notify the system when the available capacity reaches a threshold to have proactive storage management and to optimized systems performance ([0010, These techniques may result in better utilization of memory resources]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 20190268379).
With respect to claim 13, Prahlad and Ein-Gill teach the method of claim 6, Prahlad further teaches wherein the method comprises:
scanning a resource which includes data content ([0294, Using policy parameters, metadata, and/or other information stored in ingestion database 2212, the object server node 2208 may form logical groups of data objects. Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; examiner’s note: the data objects are scanned to identify metadata/other information (data content));
classifying the resource according to the data content ([0294, Using policy parameters, metadata, and/or other information stored in ingestion database 2212, the object server node 2208 may form logical groups of data objects]; examiner’s note: the system scans the database to access metadata/policies etc. (data content) and the groups are formed based on the data content);
selecting a particular metadata group for the identified data (([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the logical/object groups (a metadata group) is selected from multiple types of metadata groups, i,e, email groups, created by same application groups, similar retention policy groups etc.),
choosing a particular access data box based on at least the particular metadata group ([0294, Logical groups typically comprise objects having similar retention policies (e.g., similar secondary storage media requirements, similar retention times) and/or similar object types (e.g., all objects in the group are emails; all objects were created using the same application)]; [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group]; [0344, the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage], [0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: determining (selecting) a storage device (access data box) based on the selected groups of objects (metadata group));
ascertaining the available capacity of the chosen access data box ([0345, if the group of data objects requires first-class storage, the system may query the management index 211 to determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects]; examiner’s note: the system queries the index and checks available capacity (ascertaining an available capacity) and selects a storage device (access data box) which has the available capacity); and
based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, allowing or denying placement in the particular access data box of at least a portion of the identified data of the particular metadata group (fig. 27, 28, [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group], [0344, The system may first utilize the storage policy,….the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage.], [0345, determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects], [0363, The process 2800 begins at block 2805, when the auction service determines the current system capacity], [0367, (2) cannot be accommodated due to a lack of system resources]; examiner’s note: based on the available capacity and storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage (allowing placement or if the storage policy does not comply the data is not stored (denying)).
Prahlad does not explicitly teach saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource; access data, identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access the resource; the selecting based on at least the particular metadata label.
However, Ein-Gil teaches access data ([0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; examiner’s note: the previous access or requests of context data (access data)), identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access the resource ([0023, the particular application or service requesting access to context data; the number of previous accesses or requests to access context data (or the rate of access or requests to access) by an application]; [0027, context data associated with a current user session of an application or service is identified from the monitored user data. Aspects of the user session context data are identified and stored]; [0092, accessing content corresponding to a task (e.g., a user's email account information and credentials enabling an email message to be accessed, identified, and loaded into a second user session)]; examiner’s note: the previous access or request to context data (resource) are identified), the selecting based on at least the metadata label ([0028, Specific aspects of the context data to be stored may be identified according to a schema corresponding to a particular task being carried out on the user device. For example, where the task is reading email, an email schema may be utilized that identifies specific aspects of context data to monitor and/or store]; [0114, context monitor 256 may determine an appropriate schema based on an analysis of contextual information and user settings associated with the current user session and the available schemas, and select the most appropriate schema(s) to use]; [0115, for the task of reading email (e.g., providing email content for the user), context monitor 256 (or operating system 251, or the email application 252 or service 254, or another service) may determine data elements that represent a context associated with the task of reading email]; examiner’s note: the schema (metadata group) is selected based on the context information which includes email ID, message ID (metadata label));
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. access data, identifying attempts to access data, metadata groups associated with metadata label and selecting based on the metadata label of Ein-Gil into Prahlad to have access data, and identifying access data to have multiple types of data organization and also to have metadata group labels and to select metadata groups based on the label. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Ein-Gil into the system of Prahlad to have an efficient system. Prahlad and Ein-Gill are analogous art because both teach grouping data and transferring data. The motivation would be to have multiple types of data and organizing different types of data with a label to identify the types of data faster and also to selecting a data group based on the label to select the most appropriate groups of data faster to save time (Ein-Gil, [0016, These advances often provide advantages such as improved security, specialization, efficiency]).
Prahlad and Ein-Gill do not in combination teach saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource.
However, Narayanaswamy teaches saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource ([0047, The cloud-based metadata store can be a distributed in-memory cache], [0068, sensitivity classification in the sensitivity metadata, e.g., by assigning a “sensitive” or “non-sensitive” flag (or label) to a classification field of the sensitivity metadata], examiner’s note: the metadata label is saved in the cache and metadata label is “sensitive” flag).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. sensitivity level of metadata label and storing it in the cache of Narayanaswamy into Prahlad/Ein-Gil to identify metadata conditions i.e. sensitive data and storing it into cache. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Narayanaswamy into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to sensitive data labels and storing it into cache. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Narayanaswamy are analogous art because all the arts teach storing data. The motivation would be to have metadata label as sensitive data to enhance security of the data and access control of the data (Narayanaswamy, [0097, technology disclosed uses an efficient approach for sensitivity classification of documents downloaded to endpoints from sensitive cloud-based services]).
Claim(s) 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Colgrove et al. (US 8,127,095).
With respect to claim 15, Prahlad and Ein-Gill in combination teach the computer-readable storage device of claim 6, but do not in combination teach wherein the available capacity policy is characterized by at least one of the following: access data associated with a given metadata label is only allowed to be stored in an access data box which is also associated with the given metadata label; metadata labels are arranged in a metadata label hierarchy; instances of access data are arranged hierarchically; or access data boxes are arranged hierarchically.
However, Colgrove teaches wherein the available capacity policy is characterized by at least one of the following: access data associated with a given metadata label is only allowed to be stored in an access data box which is also associated with the given metadata label; metadata labels are arranged in a metadata label hierarchy; instances of access data are arranged hierarchically; or access data boxes are arranged hierarchically (fig. 9, lines 22-25; “FIGS. 2 through 8D illustrate means for implementing a multi-class file system comprising a hierarchy of storage classes on a plurality of storage devices and means for assigning and migrating data to different storage classes in the hierarchy of storage classes according to a set of policies for the multi-class file system”, examiner’s note: the storages (access data box) belong to an storage hierarchy (access data box), the claim comprises at least one of, therefore, only one limitations is mapped).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. access data box hierarchy of Colgrove into Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have storage hierarchy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Colgrove into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have a system which will have storage hierarchy. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Colgrove are analogous art because all of them teach storing data. The motivation would be to have hierarchical access data boxes to store data and allocate data more effectively and also to have improved user experience (Colgrove, col. 1, lines 25-30; “Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM) is a data storage solution that provides access to vast amounts of storage space while reducing the administrative and storage costs associated with data storage”, col. 21, lines 7-8; “to achieve further data storage efficiency in a multi-class file system”).
With respect to claim 20, Prahlad and Ein-Gill teach the computer-readable storage device of claim 16, Prahlad teaches the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box (fig. 27, 28, [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group], [0344, The system may first utilize the storage policy,….the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage.], [0345, determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects], [0363, The process 2800 begins at block 2805, when the auction service determines the current system capacity]; examiner’s note: storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage (allowing placement or if the storage policy does not comply the data is not stored (denying)).
Prahlad and Ein-Gill do not explicitly teach wherein the access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy, and the policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy.
However, Colgrove teaches wherein the access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy (fig. 9, lines 22-25; “FIGS. 2 through 8D illustrate means for implementing a multi-class file system comprising a hierarchy of storage classes on a plurality of storage devices and means for assigning and migrating data to different storage classes in the hierarchy of storage classes according to a set of policies for the multi-class file system”, examiner’s note: the storages (access data box) belong to an storage hierarchy (access data box)), and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy (col. 7, lines 29-31,“Policies used by the multi-class storage mechanism 104 may be based on file type, users, location, department, application, importance, value, or other factors in addition to file size and usage”; col. 10, lines 46-50, “Policies used by the multi-class storage mechanism 104 may be based on file type, users, location, department, application, importance, value, or other factors in addition to file size and usage” and fig. 9, lines 22-25; “FIGS. 2 through 8D illustrate means for implementing a multi-class file system comprising a hierarchy of storage classes on a plurality of storage devices and means for assigning and migrating data to different storage classes in the hierarchy of storage classes according to a set of policies for the multi-class file system” examiner’s note: the data is transferred in the storage in the hierarchy according to the policies and the policies includes size and usage of the storage (available capacity storage policies), when the policy is does not comply it denies access, moreover, Prahlad teaches allowing and denying placement of data in paragraph [0345]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. access data box hierarchy and allowing/denying placement data in the hierarchy of Colgrove into Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have storage hierarchy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Colgrove into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have a system which will have storage hierarchy. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Colgrove are analogous art because all of them teach storing data. The motivation would be to have hierarchical access data boxes to store data and allocate data more effectively and also to have improved user experience (Colgrove, col. 1, lines 25-30; “Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM) is a data storage solution that provides access to vast amounts of storage space while reducing the administrative and storage costs associated with data storage”, col. 21, lines 7-8; “to achieve further data storage efficiency in a multi-class file system”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prahlad et al. (US 2015/0012495) and in view of Ein-Gill et al. (US 2018/0007099) and in view of Bottorff et al. (US 2019/0334809).
With respect to claim 19, Prahlad and Ein-Gill teach the computer-readable storage device of claim 16, Prahlad further teaches the metadata groups and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group (fig. 27, 28, [0343, At block 2710, the system logically groups the various data objects and determines the storage requirements of each group], [0344, The system may first utilize the storage policy,….the system may determine that a first group of data objects requires an aggregate 200 gigabytes of first-class storage and a second group of data objects requires an aggregate 450 gigabytes of second-class storage.], [0345, determine which local magnetic storage devices 115 have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate the group of data objects], [0363, The process 2800 begins at block 2805, when the auction service determines the current system capacity]; examiner’s note: storage requirements/storage policy (available capacity usage policy) data groups (metadata groups) are stored in the storage (allowing placement or if the storage policy does not comply the data is not stored (denying)).
Prahlad and Ein-Gill does not explicitly teach wherein the metadata groups belong to a metadata group hierarchy, and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy.
However, Bottorff teaches wherein the metadata groups belong to a metadata group hierarchy ([0069, A root group may be a group whose members may transfer traffic to other roots (members in their own hierarchal “layer” of groups) and leaf groups] examiner’s note: the groups (metadata groups) belong to a group hierarchy), and the policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy ([0069, A root group may be a group whose members may transfer traffic to other roots (members in their own hierarchal “layer” of groups) and leaf groups, A leaf group may be a group whose members may transfer traffic to roots but not to other members in their own hierarchal “layer” of groups]; examiner’s note: the hierarchical groups (metadata groups) are transferred based on the rule (policy)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the features i.e. metadata group hierarchy and allowing/denying placement data based on the metadata groups hierarchy of Bottorff into Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have group hierarchy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the elective filing date to incorporate features of Bottorff into the system of Prahlad/Ein-Gill to have an efficient system. Prahlad, Ein-Gill, Bottorff are analogous art because all of them teach storing data. The motivation would be to have hierarchical metadata groups to store data and allocate data more effectively and also to have improved user experience (Bottorff, The reduced number of paths lead to efficient and faster network scaling and expansion).
Prior art considerations
Claims 1-20 are subject to 101 rejections and claims 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are subject to 112th, 101 and 103 rejections. Prior arts rejections are not cited for claims 1-5, 7, 12.
Prior arts of record Prahlad teaches access data boxes and metadata groups and allowing or denying placement of data in the access data box based on capacity and storage policies in paragraphs [0328, 0344, 0345]. Ein-Gill teaches metadata group labels and selecting metadata groups based on metadata label in paragraphs [0023, 0028]. Prior arts of records do not explicitly teach “a metadata groups structure residing in the digital memory and defining at least two metadata groups, each metadata group including at least one metadata label; an access data boxes structure residing in the digital memory and defining at least two access data boxes, each access data box including digital storage; a mapping structure residing in the digital memory, the mapping structure representing a mapping between the metadata groups structure and the access data boxes structure, the mapping structure including an available capacity usage policy; choosing a particular access data box based on at least the mapping and the particular metadata group” as recited in claim 1.
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 FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights