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 action is response to the amendment filed on 09/02/2025. Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are pending in this action. Claims 1-4, and 6-20 have been amended and claim 21 is a new claim.
Claim Interpretation
Amendment to the claims is illustrated through the changes to claim 1 (as the exemplary claim)
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
determining primary data stored on a current node and copy data of another primary data from another node stored on the current node, the primary data and the another primary data (not supported by Applicants’ disclosure) being different primary data, the current node and the another node being different nodes;
determining a primary data range of the primary data on the current node, wherein the primary data in the primary data range corresponds to multiple copy data of the primary data stored on other nodes;
segmenting the primary data range into multiple first sub-data ranges;
performing, by the current node, a data repair on a respective first sub-data range of the multiple first sub-data ranges that repairs inconsistent data between sub-data in the respective first sub-data range and corresponding copy sub-data in the multiple copy data to make them consistent;
determining, within the respective first sub-data range, a second sub-data range from a first piece of data in the respective first sub-data range that starts to fail in the data repair to a subsequent piece of data in the respective first sub-data range that starts to succeed in the data repair;
Applicants’ disclosure par. [0038] - “[0038] Further, during the data repair process, the processing device determines a second sub-data range based on a first piece of data that starts to fail in the repair to a first piece of data that starts to succeed in the repair, generates a second data repair task corresponding to the second sub-data range, and assigns a priority to the second data repair task and then submits it to the task queue.”
generating a second data repair task corresponding to the second sub-data range;
assigning a priority to the second data repair task;
submitting the second data repair task to a task queue; and
leaving the copy data of the another primary data stored on the current node to be repaired by the another node where the another primary data is stored.
Examiner notes that applicant is entitled to broaden the claims, however, examiner is entitled to provide a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). See MPEP 2111.
The amendment to the claims does not meaningfully limit the subject matter that was presented before.
The meaning (and/or BRI) of , the primary data and the another primary data being different primary data, the current node and the another node being different nodes: There are two nodes and the two nodes have different primary data.
The meaning (and/or BRI) of “determining, within the respective first sub-data range, a second sub-data range from a first piece of data in the respective first sub-data range that starts to fail in the data repair to a subsequent piece of data in the respective first sub-data range that starts to succeed in the data repair;” : A data repair process can be performed on a second or subsequent piece of data when the first piece of data fails to repair.
Applicants’ disclosure par. [0038] describes:- “Further, during the data repair process, the processing device determines a second sub-data range based on a first piece of data that starts to fail in the repair to a first piece of data that starts to succeed in the repair, generates a second data repair task corresponding to the second sub-data range, and assigns a priority to the second data repair task and then submits it to the task queue.”
Examiner read the above limitation in light of par. [0038] and also notes that providing a complex set of information through an amendment does not necessarily improve the clarity of a claim limitation.
As to the limitation, “the primary data and the another primary data being different primary data, the current node and the another node being different nodes;” examiner notes that it is a condition rather than a step to be performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has thoroughly searched the applicants disclosure for the description of the term, “primary data,”( in the claim limitation, “ the primary data and the another primary data being different primary data, the current node and the another node being different nodes:”) and was unable to find it. Plain meaning of “master data” is not “primary data.” Therefore, applicant is entitled to amend the claims only as it is supported by the original specification.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6-21 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The meaning of “primary data” as described above is unknown.
For the purpose of examination the “primary data” will considered as “master data.”
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is hereby withdrawn. The claims as amended appears to be directed to a data repair process by prioritizing items in a task queue, by moving on to a subsequent item in the queue when a first items fails to repair. This interpretation of claim is subject to a satisfactory resolution of the term, “primary data.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebresne et al., US 2020/0151145 (hereinafter Levresne), and further in view of Malewicz et al., US 2015/0324237 (hereinafter Malewicz).
Regarding claim 1, Lebresne discloses,
A method comprising:
determining primary data stored on a current node and copy data of another primary data from another note stored on the current node, the primary data and the another primary data (not supported by Applicants’ disclosure) being different primary data, the current node and the another node being different nodes; (e.g. In FIGS. 5C and 5D, hash values of
inserted rows R1 and R2 from Nodes A and Node B would not match a hash value of inserted row R1 from Node C. In that case, Node A then obtains row data from itself [as primary data stored on a current node, e.g. Node A] and each of the replica nodes, Node B and Node C
[as copy data of another primary data from another note], for all rows changed. Node A then identifies differences [as determining] in the inserted rows by comparing the obtained row data. Then, any node not already containing the identified row data differences receives that
identified row data by Node A updating its own row data via a row insert of the identified difference row data and/or Node A communicating row inserts to any replica nodes lacking the identified difference row data, Lebresne: [0069]-[0070] and Figs. 5C-5D);
determining a primary data range of the primary data on the current node, wherein the primary data in the primary data range corresponds to multiple copy data of the primary data stored on other nodes (e.g. Node A obtains row data from itself, e.g. rows R1 and R2 [as
determining a primary data range of the primary data on the current node]. Wherein, rows R1 and R2 are interpreted as primary data correspond to multiple copy of data on other nodes, e.g. nodes B and C, Lebresne: [0069]-[0070] and Figs. 5C-5D);
segmenting the primary data range into multiple first sub-data ranges (e.g. The local data ranges [as the primary data range] are split into small segments, which act as validation save points, Lebresne: [0023]); and
performing, by the current node, a data repair on a respective first sub-data range of the multiple first sub- data ranges that repairs inconsistent data between sub-data in the respective first sub-data range and corresponding copy sub-data in the multiple copy data to make them consistent (e.g. the node [as current node] selects the highest priority segment [as first sub-data range] for data consistency analysis and/or repair. The selected segment is divided into pages. A hash value is created from the selected page. A hash value from each of the one or more replica nodes is obtained. The node compares the hash value created of its copy of the page in step 435 with those hash value (s) of copy (ies) of the page received from replica node (s) in step 440 to determine whether the hash values match. Conversely, if the hash values do not match in step 445, this means that the data in the node's page is inconsistent with the data in the page (s) of the replica node (s) In that case, the process continues by, in step 450, the node obtaining the page data and corresponding time stamp (s) from the replica node (s) The node compares the time stamp (s) received from the replica node (s) with the time stamp for its own copy of the page, and whichever is the most recent informs the node whether its own page data or that of the replica node (s) is the most current. If the determination made in step 455 is that the node's data was not the most current then, in step 465, the node updates its copy of the page with the more current data received from the replica node (s) and also sends a copy of the more current data to any other replica node also containing out of date data as was indicated by the time stamp (s) obtained, Lebresne: [0029]-[0038] and Fig. 4);
leaving the copy data of the another primary data stored on the current node to be repaired by another node where the another primary data is stored (e.g. the node sends its page data to the one or more replica node (s) SO that they can update their copy of the page data, Lebresne: [0037]).
It is noted that Lebresne, even though, teaches that when a segment fails to repair, the system loops around it, waits and retries the repair after a pause (see Lebresne, [0055] “). In other words, as a soon as a segment validation fails, the system would loop on that segment until it is able to validate it successful. But this is undesirable since again, typically failures are due to node failing, which is generally temporary (the node will be restarted) but not immediate. So when the validation of a segment fails, it is more productive to wait a little bit before retrying that segment and try other segments that may well not be affected by whatever condition made the validation fail.”),
In other words, with respect to claim 1, Lebresne does not directly or explicitly disclose:
determining, within the respective first sub-data range, a second sub-data range based on a first piece of data that starts to fail in the data repair to a first piece of data that starts to succeed in the data repair;
generating a second data repair task corresponding to the second sub-data range; assigning a priority to the second data repair task; submitting the second data repair task to a task queue.
Malewicz further teaches:
determining, within the respective first sub-data range, a second sub-data range from a first piece of data in the respective first sub-data range that starts to fail in the data repair to a subsequent piece of data in the respective first sub-data range that starts to succeed in the data repair; (e.g. the work queue primary 214 (A) determines what task was running in the failed process [as second sub-data that fail in the data repair], (B) assigns that task to a new process, Malewicz: [0043]);
generating a second data repair task corresponding to the second sub-data range (e.g. (B) assigns that task to a new process, waiting if necessary until an idle process becomes available, Malewicz: [0043]);
assigning a priority to the second data repair task (e.g. the work queue primary module generates a task status table having entries representing all the tasks to be performed, and then begins assigning those tasks to idle processes. Tasks may be allocated to idle processes based on a resource allocation scheme (e.g., priority, round-robin, weighted round-robin, etc.), Malewicz: [0040]);
submitting the second data repair task to a task queue (e.g. The script or program is processed into binary files 212, 312 and provided to the work queue primary 214, 314, Malewicz: [0074]. the work queue primary 314 [as a task queue] receives a map/reduce data processing job, the work queue primary 314 allocates the job to a primary process 320, Malewicz: [0054], Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify system and method for maintaining data consistency across copies of data in large data stores as disclosed by Lebresne to include queue primary as taught by Malewicz to provide a control or supervisory the set of processing tasks.
Claim 10 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that is directed to a system/apparatus that performs the method of claim 1.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that is directed to a computer program product to be used to perform the method of claim 1.
Claims 10-19 and 20 are therefore rejected under the same rationale and for the same reasons as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9 above.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-19 have not been amended except that these claims depend on their respective amended base claims (claims 1, and 19). Regarding claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-19, the rejection set forth in the previous office action dated June 13, 2025 is hereby incorporated by reference.
Claim 21 (a method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a repair period of the current node according to a data size of the primary data range and a preset expiration time; and determining a data repair speed according to the repair period, so as to complete the data repair in the primary data range according to the data repair speed within the preset expiration time), further limits claim 1 by adding a repair period and an expiration time based on repair speed.
Claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 1 above. As for the repair period, Malewicz teaches a time period ( see Malewick, par. [00511]) that provides the number of tasks that can be performed in period of time, i.e., speed of completing the assigned task.
Malewicz, [0051] “While the system 200 provides good performance for many large-scale data processing, the performance of the system 200 may diminish as the amount of data to be processed and thus the number of tasks increases. For instance, performance may be diminished when the size of the data blocks is decreased, thereby increasing the number of map tasks. Since the intermediate data 206 are stored in the FS, an increase in tasks results in an increase in intermediate file access requests and an associated increase in network traffic. Additionally, a single work queue master 214 can only handle a limited number of task assignments per time period, beyond which the work queue master 214 begins to limit system performance. Increasing the size of those tasks to accommodate additional jobs could result in load imbalances in the system 200. These performance issues are addressed in the system 300, which is described below with respect to FIG. 3.”
As for the expiration in claim 21, Lebresne teaches time-out regarding the completion of segment repair step (see Lebresne, [0037])
Lebresne, [0037] If the determination made in step 455 is that the node's data is the most current then, in step 460, the node sends its page data to the one or more replica node(s) so that they can update their copy of the page data. In a preferred embodiment, such updates to the replica nodes are performed using the standard write process, as discussed elsewhere herein, rather than a more error prone and brittle process of modifying existing SSTable entries. Also in a preferred embodiment, the node waits to receive an acknowledgement back from the replica node(s) before proceeding (or fails the segment if such an acknowledgement is not received within a predetermined “time out” period).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 20 have been considered, however, the arguments are directed to the amended claims. The teachings regarding the amended claim limitations have been provided in the current updated 103 rejection. Applicant is requested the claim interpretations, and 115 (a) and (b) rejection set forth in this action.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132