DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
First, the examiner notes that the § 112(b) rejections set forth at pages 6 & 7 of the previous Office action appear to have been not responded to in Applicant’s Response filed 07/24/2026. These rejections are repeated below.
Second, Applicant has attempted to show that subject matter disclosed in the reference U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0208989 A1 (Shilane et al.) is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Dell Products LP at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed.
However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a conspicuous manner, and therefore, the reference is not excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Applicant must file the required submission in order to properly except the reference subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See MPEP §§ 717.02(a) & 2154.02(c).
Specifically, Applicant’s separate submission (“Statement of Co-Ownership”) identifies “the present U.S. Patent Application No. 18/418,093” as being the present application. Although this appears to be a typographical error, the signed statement is required to set forth the correct information to overcome the current prior art rejections. Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, applicant may rely upon the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Claim Interpretation - § 112(f) Invoked
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
A collector component collecting (claim 19)
A log file processor generating (claim 19)
A loader component of a vendor providing (claim 19)
A graphical user interface (GUI) displaying (claim 19)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Related to § 112(f) Invocation
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.
Regarding claim 19, claim limitations “collector component”, “log file processor”, “loader component”, and “graphical user interface (GUI)” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
This language only appears in the claim, and the specification does not provide support for hardware structure and corresponding algorithms. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over:
(i) Yu et al. (US 2020/0201699 A1, hereinafter “Yu”) in view of
(ii) Shilane et al. (US 2025/0208989 A1, hereinafter “Shilane”).
The applied reference Shilane has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Yu teaches
1. A method of processing information for debugging problems in a cluster system operated by a user and having a plurality of nodes executing containerized applications [Yu, Abstract], the method comprising:
collecting system statistics, system information, and logs for each node of a plurality of nodes in the cluster system to form collected data processed by debugging tools to rectify problems encountered in the system [Yu, ¶¶ 0022-0024];
generating, for the entire cluster system, log files from the logs for each node [Yu, ¶ 0024];
processing the log files by decompression and normalization of names and timestamps [Yu, ¶ 0027];
loading the processed log files into a search engine for retrieval of information requested by the user regarding the problems [Yu, ¶ 0034]; and
displaying results of user searches through a graphical user interface (GUI) through a data visualization dashboard process [Yu, ¶¶ 0034 & 0035].
Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the cluster system comprises a Santorini network processing containerized data utilizing a Kubernetes-based framework, and wherein the cluster system comprises part of a Data Domain deduplication backup system performing backup and restore operations for the nodes.
However, Shilane teaches wherein the cluster system comprises a Santorini network processing containerized data utilizing a Kubernetes-based framework, and wherein the cluster system comprises part of a Data Domain deduplication backup system performing backup and restore operations for the nodes [Shilane, ¶ 0003].
Yu and Shilane are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, debugging tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yu with the Santorini techniques taught by Shilane to improve user options for clustered file systems.
The combination of Yu and Shilane teaches:
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the search engine receives one or more search terms to find specific log files in the log files for the entire cluster system that are responsive to the search terms, and wherein the search terms include one of IDs, time ranges, or services to include or exclude [Yu, ¶ 0036].
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the search engine comprises on of OpenSearch or ElasticSearch, and further wherein the debugging tools comprise at least one of a dump utility, a connection checker, and a log search utility [Yu, ¶ 0034].
10. The method of claim 1 wherein the containerized applications comprise at least one of a Data Domain container running deduplication and compression processes, a cloud-native data protection manager, and a scalable object storage manager [Shilane, ¶ 0003].
11. The method of claim 1 wherein the system statistics comprise performance and activity data for applications executed by the networked nodes, including read/write latencies, read/write throughputs, replication throughput, and garbage collection performance, and further wherein the system information comprises total storage capacity, currently utilized storage capacity, and remaining storage capacity, and further wherein the logs comprise information related to at least one of: component availability state changes, component failures and errors, configuration changes, changes to source code in production, or configuration changes in a production system [Yu, ¶¶ 0022 & 0023].
Claim 19 recites limitations corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12-16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over:
(i) Yu in view of
(ii) Shilane and further in view of
(iii) K et al. (US 2023/0140208 A1, hereinafter “K”).
The combination of Yu and Shilane does not explicitly teach, but K teaches:
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing a centralized set of debugging tools in a service pod of a node of the cluster system, wherein the service pod contains a container for each application executed in the cluster system, and wherein each debugging tool of the set is associated with a respective containerized application [K, ¶¶ 0014 & 0025].
Yu, Shilane, and K are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, debugging tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yu and Shilane with the debug pod and permissions techniques taught by K to improve user options for resolving application problems by offering vendor support.
The combination of Yu, Shilane, and K teaches:
3. The method of claim 2 further comprising executing, by a vendor providing support for the cluster system, a corresponding debugging tool of the set of debugging tools to address a problem encountered by a node executing an application [K, ¶ 0020].
6. The method of claim 3 wherein the search engine is accessible by the user and the vendor over a public network coupling the cluster system operated by the user to a vendor backend system [Yu, ¶¶ 0034 & 0039].
7. The method of claim 6 wherein the processing step is performed by a loader component in the vendor backend system [Yu, ¶ 0027].
8. The method of claim 3 further comprising obtaining, by the vendor, permission to access the service pod through the interface to obtain the support bundle, and wherein the system opens only one or more ports sufficient for vendor to access the service pod during a service incident for the entire cluster network [K, ¶¶ 0021 & 0022].
12. A method of processing information for debugging problems in a cluster system provided by a vendor and operated by a user, and having a plurality of nodes executing containerized applications [Yu, Abstract], comprising:
collecting log files for each node to form collected data that is combined together in a single support bundle for transmission to the vendor [Yu, ¶¶ 0022-0024];
monitoring system operation to detect a problem in the cluster system [Yu, ¶ 0021];
transmitting the support bundle to the vendor in response to the problem [K, ¶ 0020];
receiving, through a search engine, a request by the user to obtain information regarding the problem [Yu, ¶ 0034]; and
transmitting from the vendor to the user results responsive to the request through a graphical user interface (GUI) of the cluster system [K, ¶ 0024], wherein the cluster system comprises a Santorini filesystem network processing containerized data utilizing a Kubernetes-based framework, and wherein the cluster system comprises part of a deduplication backup system performing backup and restore operations for the nodes [Shilane, ¶ 0003].
13. The method of claim 12 further comprising:
processing the log files by decompression and normalization of names and timestamps [Yu, ¶ 0027];
loading the processed log files into the search engine [Yu, ¶ 0034]; and
displaying results of user searches through a data visualization dashboard process a graphical user interface (GUI) [Yu, ¶¶ 0034 & 0035].
Claim 14 recites limitations recited in claim 11 and is rejected for same reasons discussed above.
Claim 15 recites limitations recited in claim 11 and is rejected for same reasons discussed above.
16. The method of claim 12 further comprising providing a centralized set of debugging tools in a service pod of the cluster system, wherein each debugging tool of the set is associated with a respective containerized application for use by the vendor to debug program code causing the problem [K, ¶¶ 0014 & 0025].
Claim 18 recites limitations recited in claim 10 and is rejected for same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights