Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/31/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 07/31/2026.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 15 and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to amendment/arguments
4. Applicant’s amendments with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and found to be not persuasive. The claims are allowable, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The rejection has been maintained. Please see the response to the arguments below.
Response to 101 arguments
6. Applicants arguments on Pages 2, 3 and regarding Claim 1 states “A human mind cannot practically interface with "a first set of storage devices" and a "second, different hardware storage" to physically store data such that it remains electronically accessible when a specific hardware storage pool becomes unavailable, as recited in amended claim 1. The Examiner's abstraction ignores the physical hardware architecture and the technical execution of distributed data storage, improperly reducing a complex hardware-routing operation to a mere evaluation or judgement. Because the claimed steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the claims are not directed to a mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1”. “This is a practical application specific to database management and that improves the technological field of data storage, satisfying Step 2A, Prong 2”. ”The ordered combination of elements provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection because the amended claims "accessing ... based on the first time window at least partially overlapping in time with the second time window,”, "storage location in the first hardware storage and the second storage location in the second, different hardware storage, wherein the data item is accessible at the first storage location when the second, different hardware storage is unavailable and wherein the data item is accessible at the second storage location when the first hardware storage is unavailable," is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to access the data in different storage locations and accessing the data based on a criteria/ time filter is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of, storing and accessing different storage locations and hardware storage, and these features in the claim are performed using a computing device as a tool, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components, or a programmed computer or a generic display does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The additional elements of “accessing”, “storing” amount to mere data gathering for the identified abstract ideas , which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering process. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims include additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of “accessing …”, “storing…” elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere outputting the locations of data when re- evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Further the limitation “the data item is accessible at the first storage location when the second, different hardware storage is unavailable and wherein the data item is accessible at the second storage location when the first hardware storage is unavailable” is a well understood and conventional in the field of computer technology such as when a failure happens at a node/ storage location, Failover nodes provide high availability and business continuity by automatically switching workloads to a backup node during a failure, which minimizes downtime and protects against data loss. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, improve the technology, apply the abstract idea to a particular machine, effect a transformation, nor provide meaningful limitations beyond linking the abstract idea to computer technology. They do not recite specific details that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or providing meaningful limits on the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1, 15 and 20 are nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1, 15 and 20 recites the limitations of “receiving data associated with a data item, the data item corresponding to a point in time that is in a first time window and in a second time window, the first time window at least partially overlapping in time with the second time window”, “determining a first storage location based on the element of the first set of data structures and a second storage location based on the element of the second set of data structures” is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to user to access the data in different storage locations and accessing the data based on a criteria/ time filter is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement, access the data structures corresponding to the time windows and maps the elements to different storage locations. Using the data associated with the data items, determining the respective storage locations and storing the data item, which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of, “system”, “processor”, “memory”, “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “hardware storages” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components. amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “accessing, in response to receiving the data,… et of storage locations in hardware storage”, “indexing…”“using…”, “storing…” amount to mere necessary data gathering for the identified abstract ideas , which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering process. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps to perform the mental process of determining the storage locations. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The of “accessing …”, “using…”, “storing…” elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere outputting the locations of data when re- evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claims 2, 16 are dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claims 1 and 15.
Claims 2, 15 recite “wherein the first set of data structures and the second set of data structures each comprise a plurality of hash rings…”. which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to have hash rings for each data structure which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claims 3, 17 are dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claims 1 and 15.
Claims 3, 17 recites “further comprising generating the first set of data structures for the first time window, the second set of data structures for the second time window,…” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to generate the sets of data structures based on time windows which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claims 4, 18 are dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claims 1, 15.
Claims 4, 18 recites “wherein the first data structure of the first set and the first data structure of the second set map to mutually exclusive sets of storage locations, …”. which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to store the data structures in different locations which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claim 5 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 4.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first and second sets of data structures each include two data structures, …” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to map the data structure to their locations which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claim 6 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the using the data associated with the data item to identify the element of the first set of data structures comprises: performing a first mathematical operation on a portion of the data to produce a first output value, wherein the first output value identifies one data structure in the first set of data structures; and performing a second mathematical operation on a portion of the data to produce a second output value, wherein the second output value identifies one element in the identified data structure” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operation. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to use the mathematical formula to produce the output which is a mathematical process. 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 “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly. the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 6.
Claim 7 recites “the first mathematical operation comprises a modulo operation…” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operation. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to use the mathematical formula to produce the output which is a mathematical process. 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 “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly. the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 6.
Claim 8 recites “the second mathematical operation ….” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operation. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to use the mathematical formula to produce the output which is a mathematical process. 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 “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly. the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the determining the first storage location based on the identified element …” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to identify the elements and their storage location which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claim 10 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “storing each of a plurality of incoming data items at a storage location …” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to store the data based on their data structures” which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claims 11, 19 are dependent claims that depends from and requires all the limitations of claims 1, 15.
Claims 11, 19 recites “restarting a pool of storage devices that host the first and second sets of storage locations …” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to rearrange or reverify the data stored in storage location” which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claim 12 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first set of data structures and the second set of data structures each comprise a single hash ring, and wherein the single hash ring comprises a first sub-data structure comprising odd elements and a second sub-data structure comprising even elements, wherein the first sub-data structure represents the first data structure of the first set of data structures and the second sub-data structure represents the second data structure of the first set of data structures” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to store the partition the data based on their data structures into odd and even elements which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claim 13 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “accessing the data item from a data storage system …” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to access the data based on the metadata which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Claim 14 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “wherein providing the first storage location and the second storage location to store the data item ….” which is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to provide the storage locations which is a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Allowable Subject matter
8. The claims 1-20 are allowable, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 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, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights