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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on September 03, 2025, claims 1-20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
“The 112 rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the 06/03/2025 office action is hereby withdrawn.”
This office action is in response to amendment filed 09/03/2025. In this action claim(s) 1-8 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US Pub. No. 20230385153) in view of Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771). The Cassidy et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of determining communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request over a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 9, applicant argues “determining directory iteration data indicative of protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request,” and “determining communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information to the file system server”. These claimed elements leverage obtaining binary protocol artifacts such as a directory file handle, cookie, and verifier via a file system protocol call, as well as session-level network parameters such as an IP address, transport protocol identifier, and protocol version identifier. This information exists only within a live network session with a file system server and cannot be observed or derived without specialized computing hardware executing the relevant protocol. Accordingly, the claims fall outside the scope of the “mental processes” category.
Examiner’s Reply:
Determining steps are performed in the human by using computer as a tool. Network protocols and execution are made possible because of the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 10, applicant argues “Even if some portion of the claim were deemed to involve an abstract idea, the claims integrate such idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a distributed NAS platform. The claimed operations can generate a serialized data structure comprising both the protocol-level directory iteration data and the session-level communication channel data, and the claims expressly recite storing this serialized data structure in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the serialized data structure being configured to mitigate idempotent rework. These steps tie the claimed method to a specific technological environment, e.g., distributed file system directory listing operations, and apply the data in a manner that solves a technical problem unique to that environment, namely avoiding the unnecessary repetition of directory iteration steps when resuming after failover.
Examiner’s Reply:
Applicant argues that the claims comprises statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for managing customer data (the computer is being used as a generic tool). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claims is generally linking it to a computer environment, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 10, applicant argues “The ordered combination of features—capturing both protocol-level iteration data and session-level channel metadata, combining them into a single serialized structure, and using that structure to resume processing without idempotent rework—is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art.
Examiner’s Reply:
Managign customer data using data structures is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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. The claim(s) contains subject matter 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. With respect to claim 1, 10, 17 There is no support for “determining communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request over a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system servers, ….”.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea 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, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim device (claims 1-9), device (claims 10-16), and method (claims 17-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
in response to a directory listing request that requests a directory listing from a file system server executing on a node of a distributed storage platform (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to requesting a listing):
determining directory iteration data indicative of protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining iteration data); and
determining communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request over a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a channel); and
generating a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data, the serialized data structure configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory listing request (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate a data structure).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1:
At least one processor (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
at least one memory (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations;
storing to a non-transitory computer readable medium, a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data, the serialized data structure configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory listing request (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing serialized data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 10 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
determining that a directory listing procedure the request a directory listing executing on a different device did not complete (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a procedure);
based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure on the device without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing procedure that were previously processed via the different device (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to continuing a procedure).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 10:
At least one processor (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
At least one memory (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations:
receiving a serialized data structure comprising:
directory iteration data indicative of information obtained from a file system server during the directory listing procedure executed by the different device (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering);
communication channel data of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request via a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving a data structure).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 17 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
determining, by a device comprising at least one processor, that a directory iteration procedure has been implemented by a file system server (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a procedure’s implementation); and
generating, by the device, a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a data structure);
based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing procedure that were previously processed via the different device (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to continuing a procedure).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 17:
receiving, by the device, directory iteration data indicative of protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory iteration procedure on a node of a distributed network attached storage platform (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving directory data);
receiving, by the device, communication channel data indicative of a communication channel established between the node and the file system server (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving channel data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2 and 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the file system server is a network file system server (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to request a listing).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
directory file handle data that identifies a directory being iterated (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data);
cookie data that indicates a last element, within the directory, that was iterated (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data); or
verifier data that indicates whether a state of the directory being iterated has changed on the file system server (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the communication channel data comprises a network address of the file system server (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining channel data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the communication channel data comprises a transport protocol identifier that indicates a type of transport protocol used by the file system server for the directory listing request (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by determining channel data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the communication channel data comprises a version identifier indicative of a protocol version utilized by the file system server (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by determining channel data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the communication channel data comprises: a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier that indicates a type of transport protocol used by the file system server for the directory listing request, and a version identifier indicative of a protocol version utilized by the file system server.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the operations further comprise storing the serialized data structure to a file (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the operations further comprise, in response to an interruption of the communication channel to the file system server prior to completion of the directory listing request, transmitting the file to a different device comprising a different processor and a different memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the different processor, facilitate performance of different operations, comprising continuing the directory listing without the idempotent rework of
the directory listing without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing request (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
in response to an interruption to the directory iteration procedure, transmitting, by the device, the file to a different node of the network attached storage platform (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
the directory iteration procedure on the different node without idempotent rework of portions previously processed by the node (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 1-8 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US Pub. No. 20230385153) in view of Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771).
With respect to claim 1, George et al. discloses a device, comprising:
At least one processor (See Fig. 11); and
at least one memory (See Fig. 11) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
in response to a directory listing request that requests a directory listing from a file system server executing on a node of a distributed storage platform (Paragraph 110 discloses the data storage apparatuses 1002(1)-1002(n) and/or computing device computing device 1006(1)-1006(n) can be distributed over a plurality of storage systems located in a plurality of geographic locations (e.g., located on-prem, located within a cloud computing environment, etc.)):
determining directory iteration data indicative of protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request (Paragraph 36 discloses determine whether the restore target 216 contains a current directory with the same name as the first directory that is to be restored and Paragraph 47 discloses cloud directory iterator 260 outputs a list of file inode information for content items (files) in the batch of content items (e.g., 8 content items or any other number of content items may be restored as a batch). The list of file inode information includes information such as an inode number, an inode type (e.g., directory or file), access control lists, and/or streams associated with the directory or the content items within the directory being restored). George et al. does not disclose determining communication channel data indicative of a communication channel to the file system server.
However, Cassidy et al. teaches determining communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request over a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server (Paragraph 151 discloses cloud instance 3011 may include a channel handler that provisions the channels requested by the various components of the cloud instance and Paragraph 117 discloses system may include a local directory structure);
generating and storing, to a non-transitory computer readable medium, a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data, the serialized data structure configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory listing request (Paragraph 136 discloses Cloud service 120 may use a serializer 2630 to convert an object or data structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify George et al. with Cassidy et al. to include determining communication channel data indicative of a communication channel to the file system server. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data. See Cassidy et al. Paragraphs 3-7.
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, George et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the file system server is a network file system server (Paragraph 111 discloses Network connections 1012(1)-1012(n) may include a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN) (i.e., a cloud network), for example, that utilize TCP/IP and/or one or more Network Attached Storage (NAS) protocols, such as a Common Internet File system (CIFS) protocol or a Network File system (NFS) protocol to exchange data packets, a Storage Area Network (SAN) protocol, such as Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) or Fiber Channel Protocol (FCP), an object protocol, such as simple storage service (S3), and/or non-volatile memory express (NVMe), for example).
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, George et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the directory iteration data comprises at least one of:
directory file handle data that identifies a directory being iterated;
cookie data that indicates a last element, within the directory, that was iterated (Paragraph 30 discloses cloud directory iterator iterates and lists information the content items of the directory backed up to the object store. The cloud directory iterator also returns a checkpoint structure, such as a cookie. The checkpoint structure contains information about progress of the restore process, such as an indication of which content items of the directory that have been successfully iterated so far); or
verifier data that indicates whether a state of the directory being iterated has changed on the file system server.
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 4, Cassidy et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the communication channel data comprises a network address of the file system server (Paragraph 146 discloses the cloud configuration may include the network information such as a subnet and subnet mask, the number of machines to deploy to, the MAC address (or other unique address) that can identify particular machines if desired, DNS servers, connection strings, AppDomain s for each software module, the encryption systems applied (if any), and other configuration information). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the George et al. reference and the Cassidy et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 4.
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 5, George et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the communication channel data comprises a transport protocol identifier that indicates a type of transport protocol used by the file system server for the directory listing request (Paragraph 116 discloses cluster fabric 1004 can include one or more local and/or wide area computing networks (i.e., cloud networks) embodied as Infiniband, Fibre Channel (FC), or Ethernet networks, for example, although other types of networks supporting other protocols can also be used).
The George et al. reference as modified by Getsin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 6, George et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the communication channel data comprises a version identifier indicative of a protocol version utilized by the file system server (Paragraph 69 discloses the data is converted from physical data into a version independent format for storage within the object 808).
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 7, Cassidy et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the communication channel data comprises: a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier that indicates a type of transport protocol used by the file system server for the directory listing request, and a version identifier indicative of a protocol version utilized by the file system server (Paragraph 146 discloses the cloud configuration may include the network information such as a subnet and subnet mask, the number of machines to deploy to, the MAC address (or other unique address) that can identify particular machines if desired, DNS servers, connection strings, AppDomain s for each software module, the encryption systems applied (if any), and other configuration information). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the George et al. reference and the Cassidy et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 7.
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 8, George et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise storing the serialized data structure to a file (Paragraph 74 discloses User data, directory blocks, metadata, inofile blocks of an inofile, and/or other data stored within the slots of the object 808 may be represented by nodes within the data structure).
With respect to claim 17, George et al. discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a device comprising a processor, that a directory iteration procedure has been implemented by a file system server (Paragraph 36 discloses determine whether the restore target 216 contains a current directory with the same name as the first directory that is to be restored and Paragraph 47 discloses cloud directory iterator 260 outputs a list of file inode information for content items (files) in the batch of content items (e.g., 8 content items or any other number of content items may be restored as a batch). The list of file inode information includes information such as an inode number, an inode type (e.g., directory or file), access control lists, and/or streams associated with the directory or the content items within the directory being restored);
receiving, by the device, directory iteration data indicative of protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory iteration procedure on a node of a distributed network attached storage platform (Paragraph 36 discloses determine whether the restore target 216 contains a current directory with the same name as the first directory that is to be restored and Paragraph 47 discloses cloud directory iterator 260 outputs a list of file inode information for content items (files) in the batch of content items (e.g., 8 content items or any other number of content items may be restored as a batch). The list of file inode information includes information such as an inode number, an inode type (e.g., directory or file), access control lists, and/or streams associated with the directory or the content items within the directory being restored)
George et al. does not disclose receiving, by the device, communication channel data indicative of a communication channel established between the node and the file system server.
However, Cassidy teaches receiving, by the device, communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request over a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with a communication channel established between the node and the file system server (Paragraph 151 discloses cloud instance 3011 may include a channel handler that provisions the channels requested by the various components of the cloud instance and Paragraph 117 discloses system may include a local directory structure); and
generating and storing, to a non-transitory computer readable medium by the device, a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data, the serialized data structure being configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory listing request. (Paragraph 136 discloses Cloud service 120 may use a serializer 2630 to convert an object or data structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify George et al. with Cassidy et al. to include determining communication channel data indicative of a communication channel to the file system server. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data. See Cassidy et al. Paragraphs 3-7.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy teaches all the limitations of claim 18. With respect to claim 19, George et al. discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising, in response to an interruption to the directory iteration procedure, transmitting, by the device, the file to a different node of the network attached storage platform (Paragraph 108 discloses the nodes 1006(1)-1006(n) may be configured to implement the techniques described herein. The nodes 1006(1)-1006(n) may host the restore process 150 that is configured to perform a directory and/or other techniques described herein).
Claim(s) 9-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US Pub. No. 20230385153) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) in further view of Derryberry et al. (US Pub. No. 20210389883).
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7. With respect to claim 9, George et al. as modified by Cassidy et al. does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise, in response to an interruption of the communication channel to the file system server prior to completion of the directory listing request, transmitting the file to a different device comprising a different processor and a different memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the different processor, facilitate performance of different operations, comprising continuing the directory listing without the idempotent rework of
previously processed portions of the directory listing request.
However, Derryberry et al. teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise, in response to an interruption of the communication channel to the file system server prior to completion of the directory listing request, transmitting the file to a different device configured to continue the directory listing without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing request (Paragraph 118 discloses examples can iterate over all submitted changes and perform an idempotent delete operation on all data that might exist in COSVS that examples wish to rollback before examples re-attempt an ingest to get into a consistent state that does not leave any live data lingering in COSVS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify George et al. and Cassidy et al. with Derryberry et al. to include wherein the operations further comprise, in response to an interruption of the communication channel to the file system server prior to completion of the directory listing request, transmitting the file to a different device configured to continue the directory listing without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing request. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data. See Derryberry et al. Paragraphs 4-12.
With respect to claim 10, George et al. discloses a device, comprising:
At least one processor (See Fig. 11); and
at least one memory (See Fig. 11) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
determining that a directory listing procedure that requests a directory listing executing on a different device did not complete (Paragraph 54 discloses performing checkpointing for the restore process, certain information is persisted. This information relates to identifying a point up to which the single file restore processing of content items has been completed to successful restore those content items to the restore directory as restored content items);
receiving a serialized data structure comprising:
directory iteration data indicative of protocol-level information obtained from a file system server during the directory listing procedure executed by the different device (Paragraph 135 discloses manage one or more file systems including software code and data structures that implement a persistent hierarchical namespace of files and directories, for example). George et al. does not disclose communication channel data indicative of a communication channel to a file system server.
However, Cassidy et al. teaches communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information utilized by the file system server to maintain the directory listing request via a network, the session-level connection information comprising parameters defined by a file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server (Paragraph 151 discloses cloud instance 3011 may include a channel handler that provisions the channels requested by the various components of the cloud instance and Paragraph 117 discloses system may include a local directory structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify George et al. with Cassidy et al. to include communication channel data indicative of a communication channel to a file system server. See Getsin et al. Paragraphs 3-7.
George et al. with Cassidy et al. does not disclose based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing procedure.
However, Derryberry et al. teaches based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing procedure (Paragraph 118 discloses examples can iterate over all submitted changes and perform an idempotent delete operation on all data that might exist in COSVS that examples wish to rollback before examples re-attempt an ingest to get into a consistent state that does not leave any live data lingering in COSVS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify George et al. and Cassidy et al. with Derryberry et al. to include based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure without idempotent rework of previously processed portions of the directory listing procedure. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data. See Derryberry et al. Paragraphs 4-12.
With respect to claim 11, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 11 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
The George et al. reference as modified by Cassidy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 19. With respect to claim 20, George et al. as modified by Cassidy et al. does not disclose continuing, by the device, the directory iteration procedure on the different node without idempotent rework of portions previously processed by the node.
However, Derryberry et al. teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising continuing, by the device, the directory iteration procedure on the different node without idempotent rework of portions previously processed by the node (Paragraph 118 discloses examples can iterate over all submitted changes and perform an idempotent delete operation on all data that might exist in COSVS that examples wish to rollback before examples re-attempt an ingest to get into a consistent state that does not leave any live data lingering in COSVS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify George et al. and Cassidy et al. with Derryberry et al. to include continuing, by the device, the directory iteration procedure on the different node without idempotent rework of portions previously processed by the node. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data. See Derryberry et al. Paragraphs 4-12.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-Pub. No. 20220405248 is directed to METHODS FOR ENSURING CORRECTNESS OF FILE SYSTEM ANALYTICS AND DEVICES THEREOF: [0048] the node computing device 106(1) iteratively and recursively traverses the hierarchical tree 222 using the spider 224 to apply the stored rule set and propagate the analytics property values. Accordingly, the spider 224 iterates unreported directories (i.e., those directories it encounters that have an associated rule generation number that is out-of-date) and recursively descends to collect the appropriate analytics property values from inodes of the associated files and subdirectories. In this particular examples, if a spider 224 is currently operating when a rule change occurs, the current spider is terminated and a new spider is initiated, although in other examples, spiders associated with different rule generations can execute concurrently.
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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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 at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights