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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The Action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks filed on 1/30/2026. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are pending claims. Claims 1, 14, and 19 are written in independent form. Claims 9 and 11 have been cancelled. Claim 22 is new.
Priority
Addressing Applicant’s claim to foreign priority:
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 appears to recite a typographical error in the amended limitation “based on the updated delegation enable status, facilitating, by the system, communication of a local copy of a file to a client of the file system in response to a delegation request received from the client, that a caching status of a file of the file system has been updated” because “receiving…an indication” was removed in the amended language but the indication being received, “that a caching status of a file of the file system has been updated” appears to have not been removed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is being understood as “based on the updated delegation enable status, facilitating, by the system, communication of a local copy of a file to a client of the file system in response to a delegation request received from the client
Claim 14 appears to recite a typographical error in the amended limitation “…an estimate of a aggregated benefit of the delegation enable status”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is being understood as “…an estimate of [[a]] an aggregated benefit of the delegation enable status”.
Claim 19 appears to recite a typographical error in the amended limitation “…estimating an even recall ratio based on a estimate of an aggregated cost of the delegation enable status being equal to a aggregate benefit of the delegation enable status”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is being understood as “…estimating an even recall ratio based on [[a]] an estimate of an aggregated cost of the delegation enable status being equal to [[a]] an aggregate benefit of the delegation enable status”.
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 1-8, 10, and 12-22 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.
Independent Claim 1 contains the subject matter “a baseline consumption time”, “a recall consumption time, wherein the recall consumption time is representative of a total delay time that is attributable to recalling delegations within the specified time period resulting from the access requests”, “determining, by the system, a delegation benefit time, wherein the delegation time is representative of a time saved that is attributable to the recalling of the delegations”, “based on the recall consumption time and the delegation benefit time, estimating, by the system, a break-even recall ratio where the recall consumption time is equal to the delegation benefit time”, and “based on the break-even recall ratio, selecting, by the system, a delegation enable threshold”, 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.It is not clearly stated in the written description any “a baseline consumption time”, performing steps “based on the baseline consumption time and the estimated recall ratio”, “a recall consumption time”, “a total delay time that is attributable to recalling delegations within the specified time period resulting from the access requests”, “a delegation benefit time…representative of a time saved that is attributable to the recalling of the delegations”, “a break-even recall ratio”, or selecting a delegation enable threshold “based on the break-even recall ratio” .It is noted that while Applicant states in the Remarks dated 1/30/2026 that the “support for the claim amendments and the new claim may be found at least in original Fig. 7, and paragraphs [0066]-[0072] of the originally filed specification”, the cited paragraphs and figure do not appear to recite anywhere at least the terms “baseline consumption time”, “recall consumption time” “total delay time”, delegation benefit time”, or “break-even recall ratio” or the corresponding related steps recited in the amended limitations. Further, nowhere in specification appears to recite these terms or the amended limitations related to the terms.For purposes of compact prosecution for 101 analysis, the claim 1 is being interpreted as reciting “a method comprising:
determining, by a system comprising at least one processor, a number of access requests from clients of a file system within a specified time period;
based on the number of access requests, estimating a recall ratio resulting in an estimated recall ratio;
determining, by the system, a first [[baseline]] consumption time, wherein the first [[baseline]] consumption time is representative of a first total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests, without a delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status;
determining, by the system, a second [[recall]] consumption time
Based on a comparison of the estimated recall ratio with the delegation enable threshold, updating, by the system, the delegation enable status of the file system from delegation not enabled to delegation enabled, resulting in an updated delegation enable status; and
Based on the updated delegation enable status, facilitating, by the system, communication of a local copy of a file to a client of the file system in response to a delegation request received from the client.”
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10, 12-13, and 21 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims and are therefore being rejected based upon the same reason(s) stated for their parent claims.
Dependent Claim 10 contains the subject matter “baseline consumption time” 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.It is noted that while Applicant states in the Remarks dated 1/30/2026 that the “support for the claim amendments and the new claim may be found at least in original Fig. 7, and paragraphs [0066]-[0072] of the originally filed specification”, the cited paragraphs and figure do not appear to recite anywhere at least the terms “baseline consumption time”. Further, nowhere in specification appears to recite the term or any variation of “baseline” let alone “baseline consumption time”.
For purposes of compact prosecution for 101 analysis, claim 10 is being interpreted as reciting “…first [[baseline]] consumption time…” consistent with the language recited prior to the amendments.
Independent Claim 14 contains the subject matter “wherein the delegation enable threshold results from an estimate of an aggregated cost of the delegation enable status and an estimate of an aggregated benefit of the delegation enable status” 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.It is not clearly stated in the written description any “estimate of an aggregated cost” or “estimate of an aggregated benefit” let alone the delegation enable threshold resulting from “an estimate of an aggregated cost of the delegation enable status and an estimate of an aggregated benefit of the delegation enable status”.It is noted that while Applicant states in the Remarks dated 1/30/2026 that the “support for the claim amendments and the new claim may be found at least in original Fig. 7, and paragraphs [0066]-[0072] of the originally filed specification”, the cited paragraphs and figure do not appear to recite anywhere at least the terms “aggregated cost” or “aggregated benefit”, or the corresponding related step(s) recited in the amended limitation. Further, nowhere in specification appears to recite these terms, the parts of the terms “aggregate”, “cost”, or “benefit”, or the amended limitations related to the terms.For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 14 is being interpreted as not reciting the particular amended limitation at issue.Dependent Claims 15-18 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims and are therefore being rejected based upon the same reason(s) stated for their parent claims.
Independent Claim 19 contains the subject matter “estimating an even recall ratio based on a estimate of an aggregated cost of the delegation enable status being equal to a aggregate benefit of the delegation enable status” and “based on the even recall ratio, determining a delegation enable threshold” 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.It is not clearly stated in the written description any “even recall ratio”, “aggregated cost”, or “aggregated benefit” let alone any estimated ratio based on “an estimate of an aggregated cost of the delegation enable status being equal to an aggregated benefit of the delegation enable status”.It is noted that while Applicant states in the Remarks dated 1/30/2026 that the “support for the claim amendments and the new claim may be found at least in original Fig. 7, and paragraphs [0066]-[0072] of the originally filed specification”, the cited paragraphs and figure do not appear to recite anywhere at least the terms “even recall ratio”, “aggregated cost” or “aggregated benefit”, or the corresponding related step(s) recited in the amended limitation. Further, nowhere in specification appears to recite these terms, the parts of the terms “even”, “aggregate”, “cost”, or “benefit”, or the amended limitations related to the terms.For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 19 is being interpreted as reciting “based on the first consumption time and the second consumption time, Dependent Claims 20 and 22 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims and are therefore being rejected based upon the same reason(s) stated for their parent claims.
Dependent Claim 22 contains the subject matter “wherein the even recall ratio is representative of a break-even recall ratio where the recall consumption time is equal to a delegation benefit time” 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.It is noted that while Applicant states in the Remarks dated 1/30/2026 that the “support for the claim amendments and the new claim may be found at least in original Fig. 7, and paragraphs [0066]-[0072] of the originally filed specification”, the cited paragraphs and figure do not appear to recite anywhere at least the terms “even recall ratio”, “break-even recall ratio”, “recall consumption time”, or “delegation benefit time” or the corresponding related step(s) recited in the amended limitation. Further, nowhere in specification appears to recite these terms, the parts of the terms “even”, “break-even”, or “benefit”, or the amended limitations related to the terms.
For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 22 is being interpreted as reciting “wherein the recall ratio is representative of a recall ratio where a recall time is equal to a delegation time”.
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 22 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.
The following analysis is being performed with the interpretation from the 112(a) rejection of Claim 22 above where the claim is being interpreted as reciting “The computer program product of claim 19, wherein the recall ratio is representative of a recall ratio where a recall time is equal to a delegation time”.Regarding Claim 22, the limitation “wherein the recall ratio is representative of a recall ratio where a recall time is equal to a delegation time” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how a recall time being equal to a delegation time affects or is related to the recall ratio. It is noted that the parent claim 19 recites “determining a recall ratio within the predetermined time period based on the delegation enable status and the number of the plurality of access requests” and is not using any reference to a time element to determine the recall ratio, but instead a status and a number of access requests to represent the ratio.
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 1-8, 10, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
As per Claims 1, 14, and 19,
STEP 1:In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), the claimed method (claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 21), device (claims 14-18), and computer program product (claims 19-20 and 22) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
STEP 2A Prong One:The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
Determining a number of access requests from clients of a file system within a specified time period;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the access requests and evaluating through counting the number of access requests from clients in the file system within a certain time period.
Based on the number of access requests, estimating a recall ratio resulting in an estimated recall ratio;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the number of access requests, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of an estimated recall ratio.
Determining, by the system, a first consumption time, wherein the first consumption time is representative of a first total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests, without a delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a first total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests without delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a first consumption time representative of the first total time.
Determining, by the system, a second consumption time;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by based on observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a second consumption time.
Selecting a delegation enable threshold;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by based on observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a delegation enable threshold.
Based on a comparison of the estimated recall ratio with the delegation enable threshold, updating, by the system, the delegation enable status of the file system from delegation not enabled to delegation enabled, resulting in an updated delegation enable status; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the recall ratio, the delegation enable threshold, and the delegation enable status as delegation not enabled, evaluating the ratio against the threshold, and making a judgment and/or opinion, based on the observation and evaluation, to update the delegation enable status of the file system from delegation not enabled to delegation enabled.
The independent claim 14 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
Determining a delegation enable status of a file system;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a file system and making a judgement and/or opinion as to a delegation enable status of the file system based on the observation and evaluation.
Identifying access requests from clients to a file in the file system within a defined time period, resulting in identified access requests.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating access requests from clients to a file in the file system within a defined time period, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion to identify the access requests.
Determining a recall ratio for the file system within the specified time period based on the delegation enable status and the number of access requests; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the specified time period and the identified access requests, and calculating through simple division, a ratio of two values as a recall ratio for the file system.
Determining a delegation enable threshold based on: a first total time consumed within the defined time period by the access requests, without a delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status, and a second total time consumed within the defined time period by the access requests, when the delegation enable status comprises the enabled status;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a first total time consumed within the define time period by the access requests, without a delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status, and a second total time consumed within the defined time period by the access requests, when the delegation enable status comprises the enabled status, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a delegation enable threshold.
Updating the delegation enable status of the file system by comparing the recall ratio with a delegation enable threshold; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the recall ratio and a certain delegation enable threshold, evaluating the ratio against the threshold, and making a judgment and/or opinion to update the delegation enable status of the file system.
Based on the updating of the delegation enable status, changing a delegation enable status.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the updating of the delegation enable status, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion to change a delegation status of a file of the file system.
The independent claim 19 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
Determining a delegation enable status of a file system;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a file system and making a judgement and/or opinion as to a delegation enable status of the file system based on the observation and evaluation.
Determining a number of access requests from clients to a file in the system within a specified time period;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the access requests and evaluating through counting the number of access requests from clients to a particular file in the file system within a certain time period.
Determining a recall ratio within the specified time period based on the delegation enable status and the number of access requests; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the specified time period and the counted number of access requests, and calculating through simple division, a ratio of the two values.
Determining a first consumption time, wherein the first consumption time comprises a first total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests, while a delegation enable status of the file system does not comprise an enabled status;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a first total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests without delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a first consumption time comprising the first total time.
Determining a second consumption time, wherein the second consumption time comprises a second total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests, while the delegation enable status comprises the enabled status;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a second total time consumed within the specified time period by the access requests when the delegation enable status of the file system comprises an enabled status, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a second consumption time comprising the second total time.
Based on the first consumption time and the second consumption time, determining a delegation enable threshold;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the first consumption time and the second consumption time, and based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of a delegation enable threshold.
Based on a comparison of the recall ratio with the delegation enable threshold, updating, by the system, the delegation enable status of the file system, resulting in an updated delegation enable status;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the recall ratio and the delegation enable threshold, evaluating the ratio against the threshold, and making a judgment and/or opinion, based on the observation and evaluation, to update the delegation enable status of the file system.
STEP 2A Prong Two:Claims 1, 14, and 19 recite that the steps are performed using “a system”, “at least one processor”, “a storage apparatus”, “a device” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, which is a high-level recitation of generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
Based on the updated delegation enable status, facilitating, by the system, communication of a local copy of a file to a client of the file system in response to a delegation request received from the client.
The limitation recites an insignificant extra solution activity as facilitating the sending/receiving of data (ie. Mere data gathering) such as ‘obtaining information’ as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
Communicating, to a client of the plurality of clients, the updated delegation enable status of the file system.
The limitation recites an insignificant extra solution activity as sending/receiving data (ie. Mere data gathering) such as ‘obtaining information’ as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
STEP 2B:
With respect to Claim 1 reciting “Based on the updated delegation enable status, facilitating, by the system, communication of a local copy of a file to a client of the file system in response to a delegation request received from the client.” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
With respect to Claim 19 reciting “Communicating, to a client of the plurality of clients, the updated delegation enable status of the file system.” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The conclusions for the mere implementation using generic computer components are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As per Dependent Claims 2-8, 10, 12-13, 15-18, 20 and 21,
STEP 1:In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), the claimed method (claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 21), device (claims 14-18), and computer program product (claims 19-20 and 22) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
STEP 2A Prong One:The dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-13, 15-18, 20, and 21 recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 2 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the estimating of the recall ratio comprises:
In response to determining that the delegation enable status of the file system is disabled:
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing that the delegation enable status of the file system is “disabled” and making a judgement or opinion to continue making more observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions.
Determining an estimated number of recalls for the file system within the specified time period based on the number of access requests;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the number of access requests and, based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion as to an estimated number of recalls for the file system within the specified time period.
Estimating the recall ratio based on the estimated number of recalls for the file system and the number of access requests.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the estimated number of recalls and the number of access requests, and calculating through simple division, an estimated ratio of the two values.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 3 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the estimated number of recalls for the file system comprises:
Determining, for the file, a degree of dispersion of numbers of access requests within respective time periods; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the numbers of access requests, evaluating the dispersion of the access requests, and making a judgement and/or opinion as to a degree of dispersion of numbers of access requests within respective time periods.
Determining the estimated number of recalls for the file system further based on the degree of dispersion.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the degree of dispersion and one or more estimated numbers of recalls for one or more files in the file system and making a judgement and/or opinion as to the estimated number of recalls for the file system based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 4 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the degree of dispersion comprises:
Determining, based on the numbers of the access requests, an average number of access requests from the clients for the file;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the number of access requests to a file and the number of clients, and then calculating through simple division the average number of access requests from the clients to the file.
Determining, based on the average number of access requests, a standard deviation of the numbers of access requests for the file; and
The limitation recites a mathematical concept of executing a mathematical formula for calculating a standard deviation of the numbers of access requests from the clients to the file.
Based on the standard deviation, determining the degree of dispersion.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the standard deviation and, based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion of the degree of dispersion.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 5 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein updating the delegation enable status of the file system comprises:
Updating, in response to the estimated recall ratio being less than or equal to the delegation enable threshold, the delegation enable status of the file system to enabled.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the estimated recall ratio and a certain delegation enable threshold, evaluating whether the ratio is less than or equal to the threshold, and making a judgment and/or opinion to update the delegation enable status of the file system to “enabled” based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claims 6 and 20 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the estimating of the recall ratio comprises:
In response to determining that the delegation enable status of the file system is enabled:
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing that the delegation enable status of the file system is “enabled” and making a judgement or opinion to continue making more observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions.
Determining a number of recalls associated with the file within the specified time period; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the recalls associated with the file within a specified time period and evaluating through counting the number of recalls observed.
Based on the number of access requests and the number of recalls, estimating the recall ratio with in the specified time period.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the number of access requests and the number of recalls within the specified time period, and based on the observation and evaluation, calculating an estimated recall ratio through simple division of the two values.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 7 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the updating of the delegation enable status of the file system comprises:
In response to the recall ration being determined to be greater than the delegation enable threshold, updating the delegation enable status of the file system to a disabled status.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the recall ratio and a certain delegation enable threshold, evaluating whether the ratio is greater than the threshold, and making a judgment and/or opinion to update the delegation enable status of the file system to a disabled status based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 8 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the delegation enable threshold is further based on at least one of: a request time consumed by sending access requests, a response time consumed by receiving request responses, a total number of access requests within the specified time period, a number of requests per second of the file system within the specified time period, or a delegation timeout time.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating “a request time consumed by sending access requests, a response time consumed by receiving request responses, a total number of access requests to within the specified time period, a number of requests per second of the file system within the specified time period, or a delegation timeout time” and making a judgement and/or opinion of a delegation enable threshold based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 10 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the first consumption time comprises:
Determining the first consumption time based on the request time, the response time, and the total number of access requests.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the request time, the response time, and the total number of access requests, and making a judgement and/or opinion of the first consumption time based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 12 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the third consumption time comprises:
Determining the third consumption time based on the request time, the response time, and a number of the access requests that have undergone the recall.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the request time, the response time, and a number of access requests that have undergone the recall and then determining through judgement and/or opinion the “third consumption time” based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 13 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the fourth consumption time comprises:
Determining the fourth consumption time based on the request time, the response time, the number of requests per second, the delegation timeout time, and the number of access requests that have not undergone the recall.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing “the request time, the response time, the number of requests per second, the delegation timeout time, and the number of access requests that have not undergone the recall” and then determining through judgement and/or opinion the “fourth consumption time” based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 15 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the recall ratio within the specified time period comprises:
In response to determining that the delegation enable status of the file system is disabled:
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing that the delegation enable status of the file system is “disabled” and making a judgement or opinion to continue making more observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions.
Determining a total number of recalls within the specified time period based on a number of the identified access requests;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating a number of identified access requests and, based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion as to a total number of recalls within the specified time period.
Determining a total number of access requests for the file system within the specified time period; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the access requests and evaluating through counting the total number of access requests for the file system within a certain time period.
Determining the recall ratio based on the total number of recalls and the total number of access requests.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the total number of recalls and the total number of access requests, and calculating through simple division, a ratio of the two values.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 16 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the total number of recalls comprises:
Determining, for the file in the file system, a degree of dispersion of the numbers of the access requests to the file, during respective defined periods of time, wherein the numbers of access requests comprise the number of access requests during the defined period of time; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the numbers of access requests for respective defined periods of time, evaluating the dispersion of the access requests, and making a judgement and/or opinion as to a degree of dispersion of the numbers of the access requests to the file.
Estimating a number of recalls for the file based on the degree of dispersion; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the degree of dispersion and, based on the observation and evaluation, making a judgement and/or opinion as to an estimated number of recalls for the file.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 17 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the degree of dispersion of the numbers of access requests from the clients to the file comprises:
Determining an average number of access requests from the clients to the file;
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the number of access requests from the clients to the file, and then calculating through simple division an average number of access requests from the clients to the file.
Determining, based on the average number of access requests, a standard deviation of the numbers of access requests from the clients to the file; and
The limitation recites a mathematical concept of executing a mathematical formula for calculating a standard deviation of the numbers of access requests from the clients to the file.
assigning the standard deviation to be the degree of dispersion.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the standard deviation and making a judgement and/or opinion that the standard deviation is assigned to be the degree of dispersion.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 18 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the updating of the delegation enable status of the file system comprises:
Updating, in response to the recall ratio being less than or equal to the delegation enable threshold, the delegation enable status of the file system to enabled.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the recall ratio and a certain delegation enable threshold, evaluating whether the ratio is less than or equal to the threshold, and making a judgment and/or opinion to update the delegation enable status of the file system to “enabled” based on the observation and evaluation.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 20 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the determining of the recall ratio within the specified time period further comprises:
In response to determining that the delegation enable status of the file system is enabled:
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing that the delegation enable status of the file system is “enabled” and making a judgement or opinion to continue making more observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions.
Based on the number of the plurality of access requests, estimating a number of recalls associated with the file within the specified time period, resulting in an estimated number of recalls; and
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing and evaluating the number of the plurality of access requests and recalls associated with the file within a specified time period and evaluating, and based on the observation and evaluation, estimating a number of recalls associated with the file within the predetermined time period.
Determining the recall ratio based on the number of access requests and the estimated number of recalls.
The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed by the human mind by observing the number of access requests and the number of recalls, and calculating through simple division, a ratio of the two values.
The limitation(s) of Dependent Claim 21 includes the step(s) of:
Wherein the indication that the caching status of the file of the file system has been updated comprises at least one of: based on the updated delegation enable status comprises a disabled status, a delegation disabled indication that the client has communicated a local copy of the file to the system, or based on the updated delegation enable status comprises an enabled status, the delegation enabled indication that the client has generated a local copy of the file.
The limitation recites an insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular type of data being used to represent the indication that the caching status of the file of the file system has been updated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
STEP 2A Prong Two:
Viewing the limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
STEP 2B:
With respect to Claim 21 reciting “Wherein the indication that the caching status of the file of the file system has been updated comprises at least one of: based on the updated delegation enable status comprises a disabled status, a delegation disabled indication that the client has communicated a local copy of the file to the system, or based on the updated delegation enable status comprises an enabled status, the delegation enabled indication that the client has generated a local copy of the file.” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC when claimed in a merely generic manner as court-identified see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
The conclusions for the mere implementation using generic computer components are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0103564, hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding Claim 14:
Wang teaches a device comprising:
At least one processor (Wang - Paras. [0007] & [0079]); and
A storage apparatus, the storage apparatus being coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device to perform actions, comprising: (Wang – Paras. [0079]-[0081]).
Determining a delegation enable status of a file system;
Wang teaches determining a delegation enable status by teaching whether access management permission is assigned (Para. [0069] - “when computing device 106 receives the Mth request for obtaining the access management permission of the nth file, it sets [dM, rM, cM]=[0,0,0]. When the result of the Mth access request is that no access management permission is assigned, rM is updated to 0; if after the Mth access request, the access management permission is assigned to the client and is not reclaimed due to a conflict, then rM is updated to 1; and if after the Mth access request, the access management permission is assigned and then the access right is reclaimed due to a conflict, rM is updated to −1. If it is determined that there is an access operation that conflicts with the type of the target access operation in the request, cM is updated to 1; and if the access management permission is terminated or reclaimed, dM is updated with the corresponding duration.”)
Identifying access requests from clients to a file in the file system within a defined time period, resulting in identified access requests;
Wang teaches “Computing device 106 obtains information related to a set of historical access requests for file 110” (Para. [0055]) thereby teaching determining the historical number of access requests over a time period being the historical period of time.
Wang further teaches a system comprising at least one processor by teaching “according to a second aspect of the present disclosure, an electronic device is provided. The electronic device includes at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when being executed by the at least one processor, cause the device to perform actions” (Para. [0007]).
Determining a recall ratio for the file system within the defined time period based on the delegation enable status and the identified access request;
Wang teaches calculating a current score of the file that “indicates a probability of receiving, after the access management permission is assigned to the client, a second request conflicting with the first request” which would cause a recall (Para. [0024]).
Determining a delegation enable threshold based on:
Wang teaches “calculating the threshold score using the threshold number, the number of the set of files, and the set of scores corresponding to the set of files” (Para. [0048]) and the current scores in the set of scores being calculated by “computing device 106 determines the current score based on the set of access durations, the set of reclaiming indication values, and the set of conflict indication values” (Para. [0063]). Wang also teaches “the first access duration indicates a length of time during which the access management permission is assigned” (Para. [0052]).
Therefore, Wang teaches determining consumption times comprising a total time of the access durations, and thus the total time that delegation was not being enabled, and then the remainder of the time being a total time that the delegation to the file was enabled.
It is noted that it is not specified how the consumption times are used in determining the threshold.
A first total time consumed within the defined time period by the access requests, without a delegation enable status of the file system comprising an enabled status, and
Wang teaches “calculating the threshold score using the threshold number, the number of the set of files, and the set of scores corresponding to the set of files” (Para. [0048]) and the current scores in the set of scores being calculated by “computing device 106 determines the current score based on the set of access durations, the set of reclaiming indication values, and the set of conflict indication values” (Para. [0063]). Wang also teaches “the first access duration indicates a length of time during which the access management permission is assigned” (Para. [0052]).Therefore, Wang teaches determining consumption times comprising a total time of the access durations, and thus the total time that delegation was not being enabled, and then the remainder of the time being a total time that the delegation to the file was enabled.
A second total time consumed within the defined time period by the access requests, when the delegation enable status comprises the enabled status;
Wang teaches “calculating the threshold score using the threshold number, the number of the set of files, and the set of scores corresponding to the set of files” (Para. [0048]) and the current scores in the set of scores being calculated by “computing device 106 determines the current score based on the set of access durations, the set of reclaiming indication values, and the set of conflict indication values” (Para. [0063]). Wang also teaches “the first access duration indicates a length of time during which the access management permission is assigned” (Para. [0052]).Therefore, Wang teaches determining consumption times comprising a total time of the access durations, and thus the total time that delegation was not being enabled, and then the remainder of the time being a total time that the delegation to the file was enabled.
Updating the delegation enable status of the file system by comparing the recall ratio with the delegation enable threshold; and
Wang teaches updating the delegation enable status based on comparing the recall probability and a threshold by teaching “The computing device assigns the access management permission to the client if it is determined (or in response to determining) that the current score is greater than or equal to a threshold score. This approach avoids assigning, to a client, the access management permission of a file with a high probability of an access conflict” (Para. [0024]) and “When access management permission 112 is assigned, access management permission 112 is assigned to it only when current score 108 of file 110 is greater than or equal to the threshold score. If it is less than the threshold score, access management permission 112 is not assigned to it.” (Para. [0045]).
Based on the updating of the delegation enable status, changing a delegation enable status.
Wang teaches updating, and thus changing, the delegation enable status based on comparing the recall probability and a threshold by teaching “The computing device assigns the access management permission to the client if it is determined (or in response to determining) that the current score is greater than or equal to a threshold score. This approach avoids assigning, to a client, the access management permission of a file with a high probability of an access conflict” (Para. [0024]) and “When access management permission 112 is assigned, access management permission 112 is assigned to it only when current score 108 of file 110 is greater than or equal to the threshold score. If it is less than the threshold score, access management permission 112 is not assigned to it.” (Para. [0045]).
Regarding Claim 19:
Some of the limitations herein are similar to some or all of the limitations of Claim 14.
Wang further teaches:
A computer program product, the computer program product being stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein the machine executable-instructions, when executed, cause a machine to perform actions (Wang – Para. [0081] & Claim 17).
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) 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and further in view of Vasquez Lopez et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0323872, hereinafter referred to as Vasquez).
Regarding Claim 15:
Wang further teaches:
Wherein the determining of the recall ratio within the specified time period comprises:
In response to determining that the delegation enable status of the file system is disabled:
Wang teaches calculating an updated current score of a file in response to determining to terminate access management permission (Para. [0052]).
Wang explicitly teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as recited above except:
Determining a total number of recalls within the specified time period based on a number of the identified access requests;
Determining a total number of access requests for the file system within the specified time period; and
Determining the recall ratio based on the total number of recalls and the total number of access requests.
However, in the related field of endeavor of file system caching and eviction, Vasquez teaches:
Determining a total number of recalls within the specified time period based on a number of the identified access requests;
Vasquez teaches generating an “expected number of entries to evict” based on the standard deviation (StdDev) (Para. [0067]) where the standard deviation is calculated based on “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” (Para. [0009]) and therefore teaches determining an estimated number of recalls based on the number of dispersion/StdDev for one or more entries accessed in the file system.
Determining a total number of access requests for the file system within the specified time period; and
Vasquez teaches determining “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” (Para. [0009]).
Determining the recall ratio based on the total number of recalls and the total number of access requests.
Vasquez teaches “to identified entries to be marked for eviction includes comprising a hit count associated with each entry to a statistical threshold…the statistical threshold may be calculated based on the hit counts associated with all of the entries” (Para. [0009]) and “the statistical thresholds are calculated by calculating both a standard deviation and a mean value” thereby teaching determining a ratio by comparing the total number of access requests/hit count to an estimated total number of recalls/mean value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vasquez and Wang at the time that the claimed invention was effectively filed, to have combined the two-phase eviction process for file handle caches, as taught by Vasquez, with the systems and methods for processing access management rights, as taught by Wang.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because while Wang teaches a “each access duration indicates a length of time during which the historical access management permission was assigned to the corresponding historical request” (Para. [0055]), Wang is silent as to specific steps for handling the reclaiming, or eviction, of a file when the length of time expires and Vasquez provides further details of how to handle the reclaiming, or eviction, of files using a two-phase eviction process including analyzing the “time to live” value for files to mark for eviction, and then carrying out the eviction of marked files (Paras. [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 16:
Vasquez and Wang further teach:
Wherein the determining of the total number of recalls comprises:
Determining, for the file in the file system, a degree of dispersion of the numbers of access requests to the file, during respective defined periods of time, wherein the numbers of access requests comprise the number of access requests during the defined period of time; and
It is noted that Para. [0042] of the present specification states “the standard deviation…may represent the degree of dispersion of the numbers of access requests” and therefore calculating a standard deviation is considered to read on determining a degree of dispersion, as is claimed.
Vasquez teaches calculating a standard deviation based on “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” (Para. [0009]) thereby teaching determining an average number of access requests because an average is required in calculating the standard deviation.
Estimating a number of recalls for the file based on the degree of dispersion; and
Vasquez teaches generating an “expected number of entries to evict” based on the standard deviation (StdDev) (Para. [0067]) where the standard deviation is calculated based on “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” and therefore teaches determining an estimated number of recalls based on the number of dispersion/StdDev for one or more entries accessed in the file system.
Determining the total number of recalls by determining one or more numbers of recalls for one or more files in the file system.
Vasquez teaches generating an “expected number of entries to evict” based on the standard deviation (StdDev) (Para. [0067]) where the standard deviation is calculated based on “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” (Para. [0009]) and therefore teaches determining an estimated number of recalls based on the number of dispersion/StdDev for one or more entries/files accessed in the file system.
Regarding Claim 17:
Vasquez and Wang further teach:
Wherein the determining of the degree of dispersion of the numbers of access requests from the clients to the file comprises:
Determining an average number of access requests from the clients to the file;
Vasquez teaches calculating a standard deviation based on “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” (Para. [0009]) thereby teaching determining an average number of access requests because an average is required in calculating the standard deviation.
Determining, based on the average number of access requests, a standard deviation of the numbers of access requests from the clients to the file; and
Vasquez teaches calculating a standard deviation based on “hit counts associated with all of the entries” where “hit count associated with each entry representing a number of times that the entry was accessed to service a request for content from the file system” (Para. [0009]).
Assigning the standard deviation to be the degree of dispersion.
Vasquez teaches determining the standard deviation as a statistical threshold (Para. [0009])
Regarding Claim 18:
Vasquez and Wang further teach:
Wherein the updating of the delegation enable status of the file system comprises:
Updating, in response to the recall ratio being less than or equal to the delegation enable threshold, the delegation enable status of the file system to enabled.
Wang teaches “client 102 is not qualified to obtain access management permission 112 or the current score of file 110 is less than the threshold score, at block 418, access management permission 112 is not assigned” (Para. [0077]) thereby enabling access management permission to the file for future requests because the file is not delegated.
Regarding Claim 20:
Vasquez and Wang further teach:
Wherein the determining of the recall ratio within the specified time period further comprises:
In response to determining that the delegation enable status of the file system is enabled:
Wang teaches calculating an updated current score of a file in response to determining to terminate access management permission (Para. [0052]).
Wang further teaches “the current score of the file is recalculated after each operation of the request for obtaining the access management permission of the file” (Para. [0057]) thereby teaching performing calculations in response to any determination of the file delegation enable status being enabled or disabled.
Based on the number of the plurality of access requests, estimating a number of recalls associated with the file within the specified time period, resulting in an estimated number of recalls; and
Wang teaches calculating “the current score of the file using a first access duration, a first reclaiming indication value, and a first conflict indication value that are associated with the first request,…the first reclaiming indication value indicates an assigning and reclaiming status of the access management permission…, when the corresponding first request is executed, whether there is a second request that conflicts with the first request” (Para. [0052]) thereby teaching estimating a number of recalls associated with the file over a time period. Wang further teaches the estimating being based on a number of the plurality of access requests by teaching “computing device 106 obtains a set of reclaiming indication values for the historical access management permissions related to the set of historical requests, wherein each reclaiming indication value indicates the assigning and reclaiming status of the corresponding historical access management permission.” (Para. [0059]).
Determining the recall ratio based on the number of access requests and the estimated number of recalls.
Vasquez teaches “At step 408, a hit count associated with the accessed entry is incremented. The hit count represents a number of times that the accessed entry has been accessed to service a request for content from a file system since a last time the hit count was reset. The hit count is utilized by an eviction process to identify entries for eviction from the file handle cache” (Para. [0056]) thereby teaching a recall ratio by comparing the number of access requests/hits to an eviction/reclaiming value.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed on 1/30/2026 are acknowledged.
In light of the Amendments, filed on 1/30/2026, the claim objections to Claims 8 and 14 have been withdrawn.
In light of the Amendments, filed on 1/30/2026, the 102 rejection of Claims 1, 8, and 10-13 and the 103 rejection of Claims 2-7 and 21 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks filed on 1/30/2026, Applicant argues that “in the Office Action [dated 12/3/2025], no reference is made to ‘how the consumption times are used in determining the [delegation enable] threshold.’ For example, to the extent that Wang arguably references anything similar to the claimed ‘delegation enable threshold,’ only ‘access permissions’ are discussed (Para. [0052], relied upon by the Office Action. After a reading of the relied upon portions of Wang, and the entire Wang reference, Assignee's representative submits that Wang does not teach or suggest the above-noted distinguishing features presently recited in claims 1, 14, and 19. Thus, Assignee's representative submits that Wang, considered alone or in any allegedly obvious combination, does not teach or disclose the presently claimed combination of features recited in independent claim 1, and claims 14 and 19 based on similar features.”Applicant’s argument is moot as support for the features in the amended language being argued could not be found in the specification, thus necessitating the 112(a) rejection to claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 and the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0349119) teaches receiving a request from a client device to access a file stored in a storage system configured to be communicatively coupled to a plurality of client devices. It may be determined whether to delegate the file to the requesting client device based upon, at least in part, a reinforcement learning model, thus defining a file delegation determination. An access pattern associated with the file may be monitored. The reinforcement learning model may be updated based upon, at least in part, the monitored access pattern associated with the file and the file delegation determination.The reference further teaches “determining 302 whether to delegate the file to the requesting client device may include delegating 316 the file to the requesting client device if the delegation possibility value is greater than the predetermined delegation threshold. For example, based on the delegation possibility value, file delegation management process 10 may return an action, where “0” means that file delegation management process 10 refuses to grant the delegation, and “1” means that file delegation management process 10 grants the file delegation to the requesting client device. In some implementations, the predetermined delegation threshold may be user-defined and/or defined by file delegation management process 10. In some implementations, the predetermined delegation threshold may be 0.5 which may represent a 50% probability. However, it will be appreciated that any predetermined delegation threshold may be used within the scope of the present disclosure. Accordingly, when the delegation possibility value is greater than the predetermined delegation threshold, file delegation management process 10 may delegate 316 the file to the requesting client device.” (Para. [0055]).
The reference further teaches “it was observed that the total number of delegation recalls for a file involving three client devices was reduced from 1,629 delegation recalls (i.e., without file delegation management process 10) to 692 delegation recalls (i.e., with file delegation management process 10). Accordingly, in this example, a total recall count improvement of 235.4% was observed.” (Para. [0062]).
Kamalapuram et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0050686) teaches a cost effective and robust security solution for shared files stored by file sharing software solutions are described herein. The methods and systems for generating a ledger associated with shared files, which may include scanning data received from applications associated with a number of client devices and from a cloud based scanner. An access manager may control file permissions granted to users based on requests for scan data from each user device requesting access to a shared file. A plurality of different scanning applications may provide data that is collected for each shared file to provide a diverse analysis of a shared file to increase user confidence in a file security status.The reference further teaches “management and analytics capability 588 may provide information related to how resources are used, how often resources are used, and the like. Resources may include devices, applications, data, and the like. How resources are used may include which devices download which applications, which applications access which data, and the like. How often resources are used may include how often an application has been downloaded, how many times a specific set of data has been accessed by an application, and the like.” (Para. [0079]).
Bedadala et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0250839) teaches an information management system is provided herein that uses machine learning (ML) to predict what data to store in a secondary storage device and/or when to perform the storage. For example, a client computing device can be initially configured to store data in a secondary storage device according to one or more storage policies. A media agent in the information management system can monitor data usage on the client computing device, using the data usage data to train a data storage ML model. The data storage ML model may be trained such that the model predicts what data to store in a secondary storage device and/or when to perform the storage. The client computing device can then be configured to use the trained data storage ML model in place of the storage polic(ies) to determine which data to store in a secondary storage device and/or when to perform the storage.The reference further teaches “the recall ML training system 346 can train or retrain the recall ML model using the retrieved data object recall context information and/or the retrieved data object usage data at (3). For example, the recall ML training system 346 can train or retrain the recall ML model such that the recall ML model predicts what data objects to recall and/or when to perform the recall when the recall ML model is provided with one or more inputs (e.g., a current time, an identification of the reception of a request to recall a file and/or an identification of files co-located with the requested file, an identification of an application that generated a requested file, the age of a requested file, a name of a requested file, a size of a requested file, a file type of the requested file, a datapath of a requested file, etc.).” (Para. [0338]).
Yamada et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0246206) teaches an edge node is provided with the storage destination management information that is corresponded to the edge node. The storage destination management information includes the information that indicates a storage destination for a core node of a file that has been written to a file storage region (an edge storage region) for an edge node that is corresponded to the information and includes the information that indicates a recall date that is a date that has been read by the edge node. The edge node judges whether or not there is an old file (a file before an update) in an edge storage region for the edge node based on the storage destination management information that is corresponded to the edge node and the storage destination information that is corresponded to another edge node, and create a stub for only an old file without creating a stub for a file after an update (a latest file).The reference further teaches “a count value that indicates the number of times of recall (a count value that is reset to an initial value (such as zero) for every certain period of time) is set, and a level of a recall frequency can be judged based on whether or not the count value is equal to or larger than a predetermined value.” (Para. [0279]).
Steere et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0243644) teaches a distributed file system configured to delegate file system operations to clients. The client obtains a delegation associated with an object managed by the server. The delegation enables the client to perform a file system operation on behalf of the server. The client caches the object and enables users associated with the client to access the object in accordance with the delegation.The reference further teaches
Schwols et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0251537) teaches an information file is inspected for an identity of a locking service associated with a desired file. The locking service is contacted, and the locking service grants access if the desired file is available.The reference further teaches “the information file is inspected for purposes of acquiring an address, a link, a reference, or a pointer, at 103, for a specific locking service. This information is activated to contact the appropriate locking service at 104. The contact includes an access request (desired operation of the requesting application) and the identity of the desired file. In an embodiment, this is the information that the locking service uses to make a determination as to whether the requesting application can be denied access at 105A or granted access at 105B.” (Para. [0011]).
Burnett et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0256231) teaches maintaining state consistency among multiple state-driven file system entities when the file system entities become disconnected. Responsive to a distributed file system server being disconnected from a distributed file system client, a monitor is registered with the configuration management framework (CMF) for a file system. When the CMF detects access to a file in the file system, the CMF notifies the monitor of the access to the file, and the monitor stores information about state of the file. When the distributed file system server is reconnected to the distributed file system client, information about state of the file stored in the monitor is provided to the distributed file system client.The reference further teaches “CM clients 316 and 318 each comprise a state matrix 324 and 326. A state matrix is a data set that describes what "state" is currently held by the file system server. This state would be broken down for each file system served by the file system server, then for each file system object (file) for which state is held, and then for the type of state held on that object/file (e.g., READ access, WRITE, READ-WRITE, object READ, object WRITE). Object READ and WRITE are also referred to as delegations--they are guarantees. Object `READ right` specifies that as long as the file system server has that right on the file, then no other entity is able to WRITE to it. The right is guaranteed not to change as long as the right is held. Also, an indicator in the state matrix for each file may be used to indicate whether or not locks were held on the file, as well as access counts on the file. In this example, monitors 320 and 322 also comprise a state matrix 328 and 330. Each monitor may be configured for the given state matrix of a CM client.” (Para. [0035]).
Ganesh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,275,065) teaches receiving data access records and determining a user data access behavior pattern for a user based on the data access records. The computing device receives new data access records and identifies any deviation from the user data access behavior pattern based on the new data access records. Upon identifying deviation from the user data access behavior pattern, the computing device generates an alert indicating that the user has deviated from the user data access behavior pattern.The reference further teaches “In addition to computing the average and/or median, behavioral engine 205 also computes a standard deviation. Behavioral engine 205 uses the standard deviation and the average (or median) to determine an activity threshold. The activity threshold may be, for example, one standard deviation above the average, two standard deviations above the average, three standard deviations above the average, etc. In one embodiment, behavioral engine 205 assigns a minimum data access count to a user data access behavior pattern. In one embodiment, both the activity threshold and the minimum data access count need to be exceeded to determine that a user has deviated from his user data access behavior pattern.” (Column 7 Lines 47-58).The reference further teaches “processing logic computes a user data access behavior pattern. In one embodiment, this includes computing a weekly average user data access count over a time window (e.g., one month) based on the previously received data access records (block 406) and computing a standard deviation of the user data access count (block 608). In one embodiment, at block 410, processing logic sets an activity threshold based on the standard deviation and weekly average user data access count. The activity threshold may be, for example, three standard deviations above the average user data access count.” (Column 10 Lines 11-21).
Srinivasan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,890,529) teaches implementing a distributed, segmented file system includes file servers that each are configured to control separate segments of the distributed-file system, the file servers including: a memory interface configured to communicate with a memory storing at least one of the segments of the distributed file system; a communication interface coupled to at least another of the file servers; and a processor coupled to the memory interface and the communication interface and configured to control, read, and write to file system objects stored in the memory. The system further includes means for transferring permission for access to a requested file system object from an owner server currently controlling a segment where a requested object resides to an access-requesting server.
Ackaouy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,552,223) teaches a method to provide data consistency in a storage system, includes: providing, by a server to a proxy cache, a lock associated with a delegated file in the server; in response to a write request from a client, modifying data in a cached copy of the delegated file in the proxy cache; revoking, by the server, the lock associated with the delegated file, in response to a request from another device to access the delegated file so that the delegated file is now a formerly delegated file; and writing the modified data to the formerly delegated file in the server to update the formerly delegated file; and permitting access to the formerly delegated file by the another device.The reference further teaches “retaining the active data in the proxy cache based on a specific value assigned to each of the plurality of files, wherein the specific value of each particular file is dynamically determined based on a number of access requests made by the plurality of clients for the particular file” (Claim 1)
Chinese Patent Publication CN1776595A teaches a technology for processing the request. when the request is a read data unit, returning the closest physical block position information. when the request is to write the data unit, returning the one or more source block position information, the one or more source blocks wherein the write is applied to the data unit. When a request for the number of data units exceeds a threshold level and at least one quality of a service policy is not satisfied, based on the one or more source blocks and the at least one position of the proximity degree selecting client computer creating the copy of the data unit, wherein the number of requests from the at least one client computer of the is high.
Dar et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication NO. 2024/0370166) teaches processing a plurality of input/output (IO) requests for a storage object of a storage system. A sampling interval may be determined for the plurality of IO requests for the storage object based upon, at least in part, a machine learning model processing the plurality of IO requests. The plurality of IO requests may be sampled using the determined sampling interval. The plurality of sampled IO requests may be processed using the machine learning model.
Iliev et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0101202) teaches a method is provided for accessing a file node. In this method, a file access request specifying a file node to be accessed by way of a file system is received at a server from a client device. A counter is referenced to identify that the file node is being accessed in response to a different file access request. The counter is configured to track whether the file node is being accessed. The file node is provided to the client device when the counter indicates a termination of access to the file node resulting from the different file access request.
Gustafsson (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0134429) teaches receiving a token revocation policy, which includes an identification of a set of users for which a set of associated tokens to be revoked. A request is received to access resources at a server (140) from a client device (110), where the request includes a first token generated at a token authority server for the client device. Access to the resources is denied at the server based on the first token and the token revocation policy before an expiration of the first expiration time interval associated with the first token.
Jackson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,094,291) teaches calculating a partial risk score for a data object may include identifying a request to calculate a partial risk score for a data object, the request including a partial risk score filter, and the data object being associated with one or more policies. The method may further include for each policy associated with the data object, determining whether characteristics associated with the policy match a parameter in the partial risk score filter, and when the characteristics associated with the policy match information in the partial risk score filter, including a data object risk score associated with the policy in the partial risk score for the data object.
Wang et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0103564) teaches receiving (202) a first request for obtaining access management permission of files from a client end. Current score of the files is obtained (204) after access management permission is assigned to the client end, where the current score indicates probability of receiving a second request conflicting with the first request. The access management permission of the client end is assigned (206) if the score is greater than or equal to a threshold score. A set of access durations of a set of historical requests is determined to obtain historical access management permissions of the files. Threshold number of the files is determined based on the access management permission.
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 ROBERT F MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3195. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am to 6pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-56265626. 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.
/ROBERT F MAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2154 4/22/2026
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights