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
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered based on the amendment, they are persuasive. The reference fail to teach split at newline characters such Applicant defines at first paragraph, page 3 (applicant’s argument) such as newline characters as boundaries between processable unit of data such as CVS, JSON, XML, JSONs, etc. Therefore, the previous office action 102 and 103 are withdrawn. However, the obvious double patenting, Applicant stated “Applicant acknowledges the rejection but has chosen to wait until all pending claims are otherwise in allowable condition before proceeding with any terminal disclaimer”. Therefore, obvious the double patenting is firmed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-5, 9-23 and 25-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-54 of Patent No. 11,669,505 B2. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 11,669,505 B2 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 11,669,505 claim 1
A method of managing data objects, comprising:
splitting a data object into at multiple portions Newline characters within the data object, said splitting including scanning, by a gateway computing device, the data object to identify the newline characters
transforming the portions into segments that provide individually processable units of a same type as the type of the data object; said transforming including add data and/or metadata to a portion of the portion so that the portion become an independent object having same type as the data object and
distributing the segments among multiple computing nodes of a storage cluster for protected storage therein.
A method of managing data objects, comprising:
splitting a data object into multiple portions at boundaries within the data object, the boundaries providing separators between processable units of the data object in accordance with a type of the data object;
transforming the portions into segments that provide individually processable units of a same type as the type of the data object; and
distributing the segments among multiple computing nodes of a storage cluster for storage therein; and protecting K of the segments distributed among the computing nodes using M elements of repair data generated from the K segments, each of the M elements having multiple ranges that store repair data computed from respective groupings of segments selected from the K segments, the respective groupings including groupings that consist of different numbers of segments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 can be reached on (571)272-4078. 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.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights