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 .
The Amendment filed on 07/29/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/381,037 of claims 1-20, 22-28, 30-37, 39 and 40 have been canceled and claims 21, 29, and 38 are pending.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's response regarding 101 directed to an abstract idea of claims 21, 29, and 38 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s response with respect to double patenting rejections of claims 21, 29, and 38 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 19-24 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 21, 29 and 38, Applicant argues “the claimed invention produces a concrete technical improvement: implementation of the claimed transaction transformation process resulted in 30-40% better performance with multiple simultaneous file uploads”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitations recite associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache; marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client. The limitations of associating…, marking…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system…,” “of “associating…, marking…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually associating requested operation with upload transaction, determining upload status, determining if upload has failed, marking upload transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – perform…, receiving…, determining…, waiting…, transferring…. The “perform”, “determining”, and “waiting” limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “transferring” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Perform”, “determining”, and “waiting” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “transferring” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner points that the improvement cannot be part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. See 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s response with respect to double patenting rejections of claims 21, 29, and 38 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 21, 29, and 38 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant argues regarding claims 21, 29, and 38, “Ford and Hasan are non-analogous art and cannot properly be combined in a § 103 rejection. Neither Ford nor Hasan concerns a hybrid cloud cache architecture, and neither implements journaling or transaction processing to maintain data integrity between local and remote storage”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that neither represents analogous art and more importantly, neither recognizes or provides a solution to the very problem of file integrity is nonanalogous art, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a nonanalogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor's endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In this case Ford and Hasan are each analogous art because they are in the same field of database operations, such as data uploading and transmitting of data, specifically in the field of data transactions. Therefore, the combination of Ford and Hasan discloses the claimed limitations. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 21, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 21, 29, and 38 recite associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache; marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client.
The limitations of associating…, marking…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system…,” “of “associating…, marking…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually associating requested operation with upload transaction, determining upload status, determining if upload has failed, marking upload transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – perform…, receiving…, determining…, waiting…, transferring…. The “perform”, “determining”, and “waiting” limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “transferring” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Perform”, “determining”, and “waiting” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “transferring” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0041296; hereinafter “Ford”) in view of Hasan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0241458; hereinafter “Hasan”) and Jai et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0206218; hereinafter “Jai”) and further in view of Atkinson (U.S. Patent 6,728,879).
As per claims 21, 29, and 38, Ford discloses a transaction processing system, comprising: a set of computer-executable instructions; (See paras. 371-372, wherein instructions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
and a processor or processors that execute the set of instructions, wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising: (See para. 118, wherein processors are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
receiving a request from a client to perform a file upload operation; (See Fig. 46, paras. 68, 70, and 109, wherein upload operations are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction; (See paras. 70, 86, and 109 wherein upload operations are disclosed, also See paras. 146 and 151, wherein upload transactions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
determining an upload status of the file when the transaction processing system is ready to execute the upload transaction associated with the file upload operation, (See paras. 116 and 152, wherein status data are disclosed, also See paras. 70, 86, and 109 wherein upload operations are disclosed, also See paras. 146 and 151, wherein upload transactions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
and marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client. (See paras. 177-180 and 182, wherein marking a document is disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
Notes: the following claim language is conditional and not currently required by the language of the claim (i.e. if the upload status indicates the file is not already uploaded and if the upload to the staging area has not failed, the following claim language of waiting/transferring/transforming are not required by the claim).
However, Ford fails to disclose wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to a staging area, then determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed and transferring the file from the staging area to the destination intended by the client.
On the other hand, Hasan teaches wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to a staging area, then determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, (See Fig. 3, paras. 24, 431-433, wherein staging database are disclosed, also See para. 514, wherein portal service functions are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed and transferring the file from the staging area to the destination intended by the client. (See Fig. 3, paras. 24, 431-433, wherein staging database and transferring are disclosed, also See paras. 514-515, wherein portal service functions are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Hasan teachings in the Ford system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system for communication of healthcare data taught by Hasan in the Ford system for optimizing secure data exchange. In addition, both of the references (Ford and Hasan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as file upload and database operations. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Notes: the following claim language is conditional and not currently required by the language of the claim (i.e. if the upload status indicates the file is not already uploaded and if the upload to the staging area has not failed, the following claim language of waiting/transferring/transforming are not required by the claim).
However, the combination of Ford and Hasan fails to disclose a hybrid cloud cache that maintains a journal for synchronizing data between local storage and a cloud storage system; journal of the hybrid cloud cache; a pre-commit namespace in the cloud storage system that is not visible to the client; transforming the file upload operation from a data operation into a metadata operation without compromising consistency or integrity of the hybrid cloud cache.
On the other hand, Jai teaches a hybrid cloud cache that maintains a journal for synchronizing data between local storage and a cloud storage system; (See Figs. 1-2, paras. 26-27, wherein continuous chunk of content data, transmission of data, transferring cloud server and client devices are disclosed, also See Figs. 3, 7A, paras. 36-39, 41, wherein hybrid cloud file system and synching management module features are disclosed; as taught by Jai.)
journal of the hybrid cloud cache; (See Figs. 2, 8E, paras. 34-36, 47, wherein a cache storage and hybrid cloud file system are disclosed; as taught by Jai.)
wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to a staging area a pre-commit namespace in the cloud storage system that is not visible to the client; (See Fig. 3, paras. 37-38, wherein cache management features for accelerating data access before data uploading to cloud storage server cluster in which “cache management module 430 may allocate a space in the cache storage 470 for the file and the synchronization management module 440 may obtain the file from the cloud storage server cluster 200. If any update occurs during data processing, the cache management module 430 may update the file in the cache storage 470. The synchronization management module 440 may further send an uploading request with the file to the cloud storage server cluster 200, and the file management module 420 may further update directory information accordingly” [0037] and “synching management module 440 may further comprise a prefetch management component 441 for determining a prefetch plan to fetch data contents before being initiated by a user, a deduplication component 443 for checking duplicated data contents for data compression, an upload management component 445 for uploading data contents to the cloud storage server cluster 200 according to an uploading policy…” [0038] are disclosed; as taught by Jai.)
transforming the file upload operation from a data operation into a metadata operation without compromising consistency or integrity of the hybrid cloud cache. (See Fig. 3, paras. 40-42, wherein deduplication operation features in which “deduplication operation may generally be expressed in two simplified steps: finding data content collision (data contents that are duplicated with another) and storing a copy for a collided data content and pointers (e.g. the address of the copy) along with identifications (e.g. metadata of a file) for other collided data contents instead. Hashing is often applied in finding data content collision. A hash may be a transformation of a string of characters (e.g., data contents) into a shorter fixed-length value or key that represents the original string” [0041] and “Metadata of data contents in the respective client devices may be uploaded to the cloud storage server cluster 200 as a reference for identifying collided data contents belong to the respective data contents. In some implementations, an identification generated from the metadata of the collided data contents and a pointer for accessing a copy of the collided data contents stored independently may be stored for replacing other collided data contents” [0042] are disclosed; as taught by Jai.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Jai teachings in the combination of Ford and Hasan system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system for data deduplication in cloud based storage taught by Jai in the combination of Ford and Hasan system for optimizing secure data exchange. In addition, both of the references (Ford, Hasan, and Jai) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as file upload and database operations. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Ford, Hasan, and Jai fails to disclose a circular log that records transactions with monotonically increasing transaction identifiers.
On the other hand, Atkinson teaches a circular log that records transactions with monotonically increasing transaction identifiers. (See Fig. 4, col. 9, ll 30-41 and col. 10, ll 25-37, wherein circular log and monotonically increasing sequence of data records are disclosed, also See col. 12, ll 34-45, wherein identification of log data are disclosed; as taught by Atkinson.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Atkinson teachings in the combination of Ford, Hasan, and Jai system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system for transactional log with multi-sector log block validation taught by Atkinson in the combination of Ford, Hasan, and Jai system for optimizing secure data exchange. In addition, both of the references (Ford, Hasan, Jai, and Atkinson) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as file upload and database operations. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
1. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
2. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
POINT OF CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
