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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/02/2026.
Status of claims:
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are amended.
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/02/2026 with respect to the amended claims have been considered in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Applicant argued that “the limitations recited by claim 1 and similarly recited by the other independent claims could not be practically performed in the human mind. In the alternative, the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea outlined in the Office Action”. Examiner respectful respond that the 101 rejections are maintained because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract Idea). Please see the 101 rejections of the amended claims below.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7 and 13:Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitations a “un-associate…’; “associate…” are process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “un-associate…’; “associate”, in the context of the claim encompasses one can manually or mentally with the aid of pen and paper associate and un-associate the particular host from the folders.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element “maintain…, the metadata defining an update frequency…; transmit…;wherein the local management…to update; in response ..to move…”, represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“processor, a memory, the information handling system” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
At Step 2B:
“maintain…, the metadata defining an update frequency…; transmit…;wherein the local management…to update; in response ..to move…”. This are identified as insignificant extra-solution activities above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases 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, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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)”.
“processor, a memory, the information handling system”, amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: relevant court decision: the followings are example of the court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see versata Dev. Group, Inc. v SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Looking at the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and the claim(s) appear(s) to be ineligible.
Claims 2-3, recite the limitations, which are amount to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 4-5, recite the limitations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element “receive…”, amount to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation manage”, represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6, recite the limitation, which is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 8-11, are rejected under the same rational as the system claims 2-6 above.
Claim 12, is rejected under the same rational as the system claim 6 above.
Claims 14-17, are rejected under the same rational as the system claims 2-6 above.
Claim 18, is rejected under the same rational as the system claim 6 above.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 13, recite the newly added limitation "the metadata defining an update frequency for the one or more hosts". Nowhere in the specification mentions “an update frequency” and provides no guidance as how the metadata defines an update frequency for the one or more hosts. Applicant is required for corrections.
- All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as their based claims as above.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arikatla et al., (US 2018/0157752), hereinafter “Arikatla”, in view of , Massiglia et al. (US 2026/0154405 ), hereinafter “Massiglia”, and further in view of He (US 2018/0341662).
As per claim 1, Arikatla discloses an information handling system (par. [0033] & [0040), the network file system contains File System Architecture):
at least one processor (par. [0196], processor); and
a memory (par. [0196], memory);
wherein the information handling system is configured to: maintain a plurality of folders in a central management system, wherein each folder is a data structure designating one or more hosts, wherein the hosts are individual information handling systems (par. [0030], wherein the file server VMs communicate with storage controllers provided by Controller/Service VMs executing on the host machines to store and retrieve files and folders; and par. [0041]-[0045], a set of storage items, such as files organized in a hierarchical structure of folders (also known as directories), wherein the host machine 200c may be designated as a leader node within a cluster of host machines, which is responsible for monitoring or handling requests from FSVMs on other host machines throughout the virtualized environment. Then file server VMs (FSVMs) may maintain a storage map, that maps names or identifiers of storage items to their corresponding locations. The storage map may be a distributed data structure of which copies are maintained at each FSVM 170a-c and accessed using distributed locks or other storage item access operations. Alternatively, the storage map may be maintained by a leader node such as the host machine 200c, and the other host machines 200a and 200b may send requests to query and update the storage map to the leader host machine 200c), such that the one or more hosts designated a selected folder are managed as a group, and wherein when attributes are applied to the selected folder, the attributes are also applied to the one or more hosts designated the selected folder (par. [0070], and [0041]-[0045], Particular embodiments may enable user VMs to send referral requests to FSVMs 170 when attempting to access a particular directory. The referral request may specify a path to the directory. When resolving the path to determine the exact location of the directory, particular embodiments may need to locate which host machine is storing the directory (and the data/files in the directory). Metadata for attributes of storage items that is captured in the snapshot of the consistency group for the FSVMs may be stored in a database. Such metadata may include, by way of example and not limitation: file type, permissions, owner, group, file size, file access time, file modification time, file deletion time, number of(soft/hard) links to the file/directory, extended attributes, or an access control list (ACL));
However, Arikatla does not explicitly disclose the limitation “the metadata defining an update frequency for the one or more hosts”.
Meanwhile, Massiglia discloses the metadata defining an update frequency for the one or more hosts (par. [0096], , they cache active data and metadata in their own blades' 252 DRAMs for fast access, but the authorities store every update in their NVRAM 204 partitions on three separate blades 252 until the update has been written to flash 206; par. [0236], determining, by the data protection system, that the storage system is actually not being targeted by the security threat; and directing, by the data protection system in response to the determining that the host data is actually not being targeted by the security threat, the storage system to delete the recovery dataset.; and par. [0243], the data protection parameter set specifies a recovery dataset generation frequency that defines a frequency at which the recovery datasets are generated; and the modifying of the data protection parameter set comprises increasing the recovery dataset generation frequency; and par. [0244], the data protection parameter set specifies a remote storage frequency that defines a frequency at which a subset of recovery datasets in the recovery datasets are transmitted to a remote storage system connected to the storage system by way of a network; and the modifying of the data protection parameter set comprises modifying the remote storage frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Arikatla to include the features as disclosed by Massiglia to provide efficiency data service for storage management system .
However, the combination of Arikatla and Massiglia does not explicitly disclose the attributes including permissions and metadata relating to the one or more hosts; in response to an instruction to move a particular host from a first folder to a second folder: un-associate the particular host from the first folder; associate the particular host with the second folder; and wherein the local management system is configured to update a local data structure regarding the movement; transmit a notification regarding the movement to a local management system of a satellite information handling system.
On the other hand, He discloses the attributes including permissions and metadata relating to the one or more hosts (par. [0161] 4) authenticating user access; 15) maintaining both structured and unstructured data for multiple users; par. [0148], a node object has several attributes including an object ID that uniquely identifies a node, the. IP address of the node. The node's owner's ID that identifies a registered user in the system, the status of the node object; par. [0215] and [0222],The computer that hosts control node might be offline or shut down for some reason at the time when root node tries to decide which control node to redirect the user request to. After user authentication, root node 07R01 extracts from the request the IP address of the computer from which the request was sent. And then root node 07R01 looks up the list of the control nodes under its command for a match of the user ID);
in response to an instruction to move a particular host from a first folder to a second folder: un-associate the particular host from the first folder; associate the particular host with the second folder; and wherein the local management system is configured to update a local data structure regarding the movement (par. [0161] and [0238], wherein the process node serves as a content manager that manages folders and files on a personal computer. The hierarchical computing network enables users to manage their personal files of any formats remotely online from any device anywhere. Wherein after authentication and checks, root node 09R01 looks for a control node that can take over the responsibilities from control node 09C02, and found control node 09C03, preferably in the same region as that of 09C02. If no successor control node is found, root node 09R01 shall take over the responsibilities from control node 09C02. After finding successor control node 09C03, root node 09R01 sends a handover command to 09C03 as indicated by Handover 09HC13 in the diagram. This command asks control node 09C03 to take over responsibilities from control node 09C02, especially the download application that control node 09C02 stores locally. The data move operation is initiated by control node 09C03 as indicated by Move 09DV32 in the diagram);
transmit a notification regarding the movement to a local management system of a satellite information handling system (par. [0238], After all application data has been successfully moved over, control node 09C03 sends a notification message to the commanding root node 09R01. Notify 09NF31 represents the notification message from a control node to its superior root node. Upon receiving Notify 09NF31, root node 09R01 removes control node 09C02 from the list of subordinates, refreshes the location indexes so that they point to substitute control node 09C03 and then discharges control node 09C02 by sending a first discharge command. Discharge 09DS12 to the control node 09C02).
He also discloses the limitation a data structure designating one or more hosts, wherein the hosts are individual information handling system (see fig. 1B, par. [0161] and [0238], wherein the process node serves as a content manager that manages folders and files on a personal computer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Arikatla and Massiglia to include the features as disclosed by He for computation, control, measurement and data services of a large amount of data from a large number of users.
As per claim 2, the combination of Arikatla, Massiglia and He discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Arikatla discloses the central management system is a central hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) management system (par. [0177], a hyper-converged infrastructure)
As per claim 3, the combination of Arikatla, Massiglia and He discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Arikatla discloses the particular host is a node of an HCI system managed by the central HCI management system (par. [0043] and [0045], a leader node within a cluster of host machines).
As per claim 4, the combination of Arikatla, Massiglia and He discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Arikatla discloses receives an instruction to perform a manual synchronization with the local management system (par. [0189]-[0190], if a home directory does not yet exist for a new user, the home directory for the user may be created in local storage for the host machine running the FSVM to which the request was sent. If the home directory for the user needs to be created on a different host machine (e.g., due to load balancing or capacity issues), particular embodiments, may create the new home directory on another host machine, then send back a share-level DFS referral to that host machine).
As per claim 5, the combination of Arikatla, Massiglia and He discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Arikatla discloses the second folder is a managed folder that is managed by the local management system (par. [0189]-[0190]).
As per claim 6, the combination of Arikatla, Massiglia and He discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Arikatla discloses the second folder is an unmanaged folder (par. [0189]-[0190]).
As per claims 7-12, are methods for performing the system of claims 1-6 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 13-18, are article of manufacture comprising a non- transitory, computer-readable medium having stored therein computer- executable instructions for executing the system of claims 1-6 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights