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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 09, 2026 has been entered.
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on February 09, 202, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
“The 112 rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the 02/09/2026 office action is hereby withdrawn.”
This office action is in response to amendment filed 02/09/2026. In this action Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 17-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badger (US Pub. No. 2023042394) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) in further view of Radi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230418642). The Badger reference has been added to address the amendment of determining directory iteration data obtained from the file system server via a file system access protocol, wherein the directory iteration data is indicative of streaming protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request, wherein the streaming protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle, a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 17-18, applicant argues “Viewed as a whole, claim 1 recites a specific arrangement of computing components that interact with a distributed NAS file system over NFS/SMB or similar protocols to obtain, normalize, and persist protocol-level iterator state and session-level channel metadata, and then arrange that information in a serialized structure designed to control later file-system protocol behavior. This is a concrete technological arrangement that cannot reasonably be analogized to a human "mental process."
Examiner’s Reply:
Even looking at the amended claim as a whole these steps, Determining and generating steps are performed in the human by using computer as a tool.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 19-20, applicant argues “The Office Action suggests that the claim merely links an abstract idea to a computer environment. That is not the case. The improvement to the distributed storage platform does not arise solely because a generic computer is being used; rather, it arises from the specific way in which protocol-level iterator state and session-level channel parameters are captured, serialized, and then used to drive the behavior of a subsequent file-system session. These claim elements are analogous to the "specific way of sorting, analyzing, and storing data" that Desjardins recognized as improving computer functionality. Claim 1 directs a particular design of a serializable directory iterator tailored to networked file systems, and the behavior of the NAS cluster is measurably improved-directory listings do not incur redundant traversals after failover. That is a concrete practical application of any data-handling that might arguably be abstract”.
Examiner’s Reply:
Although certain concepts may be eligible when additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application, the current claims do not include any additional elements that provide such an integration. Managing customer data and storing a data structure using conventional computer functions that merely link the abstract idea to a generic computing environment. These I/O steps do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 22, applicant argues “directory listings after node or channel failures. The claimed combination goes beyond simply storing or transmitting data; it recites a specific protocol-aware design that a person of ordinary skill would not find in routine, off-the-shelf components or generic data management patterns. Accordingly, even if some aspect of the claim were to be viewed as abstract, the additional elements in their ordered combination amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and provide the requisite inventive concept under Step 2B.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Managing customer data using data structures is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Protocols are inherently well-understood routine and conventional because they are established procedures to achieve a certain function.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 17-24 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 “when de-serialized on a different device by resuming the directory listing for a directory over the file system access protocol without re-listing directory entries that were already returned via the file system server, ….”.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-24 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-9), device (claims 10-12, 14-15), and method (claims 17-24) 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 obtained from the file system server via a file system access protocol, wherein the directory iteration data is indicative of streaming protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request, wherein the streaming protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle, a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol (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 for a file system protocol session that carries the directory listing request over a network, wherein the session-level connection information comprises parameters defined by the file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server, and wherein the parameters comprise a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier, and a protocol version identifier (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
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 over the file system access protocol without idempotent rework of directory entries that were previously returned via the file system server during 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 obtained from a file system server via a file system access protocol during the directory listing procedure executed by the different device, wherein the directory iteration data is indicative of streaming protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing procedure, wherein the streaming protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle, a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol; and (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering);
communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information for a file system protocol session that carried the directory listing procedure on the different device request via a network, wherein the session-level connection information comprises parameters defined by the file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server, and wherein the parameters comprise a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier, and a protocol version identifier (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 initiated 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 is configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory iteration procedure when de-serialized on a different device by resuming the directory listing for a directory over the file system access protocol without re-listing directory entries that were already returned via 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 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 obtained from the file system server via a file system access protocol, wherein the directory iteration data is 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, wherein the protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle. a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving directory data);
receiving, by the device, communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information for a file system protocol session between the node and the file system server that maintains the directory iteration procedure listing request over a network, wherein the session-level connection information comprises parameters defined by the file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server and wherein the parameters comprise a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier, and a protocol version identifier (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving channel data);
is configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory iteration procedure when de-serialized on a different device by resuming the directory listing for a directory over the file system access protocol without re-listing directory entries that were already returned via the file system server.
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) 5 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the 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 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 active communication channel to the file system server prior to completion of the directory listing request, transmitting the file to the 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.
With respect to claim(s) 21:
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 transport protocol identifier that indicates a type of transport protocol used by the file system server for the directory listing request (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering).
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) 22:
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 protocol version identifier indicates a protocol version of the file system access protocol utilized by the file system server (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering).
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) 23:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
in response to determining that a state of a directory identified by the directory file handle has changed at the file system server based on the verifier,
automatically invalidating, by the device, the serialized data structure (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 invalidating the structure) and
generating, by the device, a replacement serialized data structure using updated directory iteration data and communication channel data, such that any subsequent resumption of the directory listing for the directory is performed based on the replacement serialized data structure (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 replacement).
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) 24:
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 file system server is a network file system server. (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering).
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) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 17-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badger (US Pub. No. 2023042394) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) in further view of Radi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230418642).
With respect to claim 1, Badger discloses a device, comprising:
At least one processor (See Fig. 9); and
at least one memory (See Fig. 9) 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 15 discloses an on-demand request for the immutable read-only file or for a directory listing):
determining directory iteration data obtained from the file system server via a file system access protocol, wherein the directory iteration data is indicative of streaming protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request, wherein the streaming protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle, a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol (Paragraph 21 a scalable multi-node file system cache for a remote cluster file system. The scalable writable file system cache, which caches remote file data, supports directory traversals through the cache by creating the directory structure on demand without impacting performance. A directory listing consists of the name and inode information of the object). Badger 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 for a file system protocol session that carries the directory listing request over a network, wherein the session-level connection information comprises parameters defined by the file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server, and wherein the parameters comprise a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier, and a protocol version identifier (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 Paragraph 83 discloses each proxy 122 may use an ad-hoc method or centralized proxy to determine the network addresses (or the like) of each other).
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 Badger’s information processing with Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data.
Badger as modified by Cassidy et al. does not disclose generating and storing, to a non-transitory computer readable medium, a serialized data structure.
However, Radi et al. discloses generating and storing, to a non-transitory computer readable medium, a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data, wherein the serialized data structure is configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory listing request when de-serialized on a different device by resuming the directory listing for a directory over the file system access protocol without re-listing directory entries that were already returned via the file system server (Paragraph 49 discloses serialization points for the memory blocks stored at its local shared memory. This arrangement can facilitate a distributed coherence protocol that is scalable and can provide quicker responses to memory messages than a global directory for the distributed memory system due to the directories' locations).
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 Badger’s information processing and Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing with Radi et al.’s memory coherence. This would have facilitated improved directory size management.
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Badger teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the file system server is a network file system server (Paragraph 51 discloses A read-only caching network file system).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 5, Badger 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 52 discloses By using standards-based protocols as contemplated herein, the operational function of a ROC-FS can be monitored and examined in detail. A detailed understanding of what content is used where and by whom could be constructed).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi 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 52 discloses By using standards-based protocols as contemplated herein, the operational function of a ROC-FS can be monitored and examined in detail. A detailed understanding of what content is used where and by whom could be constructed). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Badger reference and the Cassidy et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 7.
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 8, Radi et al. teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise storing the serialized data structure to a file (Paragraph 70 discloses a serialization point for the modification of the data stored in shared memory 14A).
With respect to claim 17, Badger discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a device comprising at least one processor, that a directory iteration procedure has been initiated by a file system server (Paragraph 15 discloses demand request for the immutable read-only file or for a directory listing of a file directory containing the immutable read-only file. In response to the on-demand request, the read-only WebDAV server can determine whether the immutable read-only file has been previously cached in a cache server);
receiving, by the device, that directory iteration data obtained from the file system server via a file system access protocol, wherein the directory iteration data is indicative of streaming protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing request, wherein the streaming protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle, a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol (Paragraph 21 a scalable multi-node file system cache for a remote cluster file system. The scalable writable file system cache, which caches remote file data, supports directory traversals through the cache by creating the directory structure on demand without impacting performance. A directory listing consists of the name and inode information of the object). Gunga et al. does not disclose determining communication channel data indicative of a communication channel to the file system server.
However, Cassidy et al. teaches receiving, by the device, communication channel data indicative of session-level connection information for a file system protocol session that carries the directory listing request over a network, wherein the session-level connection information comprises parameters defined by the file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server, and wherein the parameters comprise a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier, and a protocol version identifier (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 Paragraph 83 discloses each proxy 122 may use an ad-hoc method or centralized proxy to determine the network addresses (or the like) of each other);
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 Badger’s information processing with Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data.
Badger as modified by Cassidy et al. does not disclose generating and storing, to a non-transitory computer readable medium, a serialized data structure.
However, Radi et al. discloses generating and storing, to a non-transitory computer readable medium, a serialized data structure comprising the directory iteration data and the communication channel data, wherein the serialized data structure is configured to mitigate idempotent rework relating to the directory listing request when de-serialized on a different device by resuming the directory listing for a directory over the file system access protocol without re-listing directory entries that were already returned via the file system server (Paragraph 49 discloses serialization points for the memory blocks stored at its local shared memory. This arrangement can facilitate a distributed coherence protocol that is scalable and can provide quicker responses to memory messages than a global directory for the distributed memory system due to the directories' locations).
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 Badger’s information processing and Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing with Radi et al.’s memory coherence. This would have facilitated improved directory size management.
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 Badger reference as modified by Cassidy and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 18. With respect to claim 19, Badger 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 153 discloses multiple cloud instances 3011, or all cloud instances 3011, the orchestrator 3014 provides a means to shut any, some, or all nodes down automatically at once or in sequence, rather than manually one at a time).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17. With respect to claim 21, Badger discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the transport protocol identifier that indicates a type of transport protocol used by the file system server for the directory listing request (Paragraph 30 discloses Clients 100 and Traditional servers 108 communicate using the WebDAV protocol as defined in RFC 4918).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17. With respect to claim 22, Badger discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the protocol version identifier indicates a protocol version of the file system access protocol utilized by the file system server (Paragraph 52 discloses using standards-based protocols as contemplated herein, the operational function of a ROC-FS can be monitored and examined in detail).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17. With respect to claim 23, Radi et al. discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising, in response to determining that a state of a directory identified by the directory file handle has changed at the file system server based on the verifier, automatically invalidating, by the device, the serialized data structure and generating, by the device, a replacement serialized data structure using updated directory iteration data and communication channel data, such that any subsequent resumption of the directory listing for the directory is performed based on the replacement serialized data structure (Paragraph 49 discloses serialization points for the memory blocks stored at its local shared memory. This arrangement can facilitate a distributed coherence protocol that is scalable and can provide quicker responses to memory messages than a global directory for the distributed memory system due to the directories' locations). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Badger reference and the Radi et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 7
With respect to claim 24, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 24 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badger (US Pub. No. 2023042394) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) and Radi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230418642) in further view of George et al. (US Pub. No. 20230385153).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Badger as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. does not disclose cookie data that indicates a last element, within the directory, that was iterated.
However, 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.
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 Badger’s information processing and Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing and Radi et al.’s memory coherence with George et al.’s directory restoration. This would have facilitated improved scalable storage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badger (US Pub. No. 2023042394) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) and Radi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230418642) in further view of Derryberry et al. (US Pub. No. 20210389883).
The Badger reference as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7. With respect to claim 9, Badger as modified by Cassidy et al. and Radi 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 Badger’s information processing and Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing and Radi et al.’s memory coherence with Derryberry et al.’s cloud object storage. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US Pub. No. 20230385153) and Badger (US Pub. No. 2023042394) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) in further view of Radi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230418642).
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). George et al. does not disclose directory iteration data obtained from a file system server…
However, Badger discloses directory iteration data obtained from a file system server via a file system access protocol during the directory listing procedure executed by the different device, wherein the directory iteration data is indicative of streaming protocol-level information utilized by the file system server to process the directory listing procedure, wherein the streaming protocol-level information comprises at least a directory file handle, a cookie, and a verifier defined by the file system access protocol.
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.’s directory restoration with Badger’s information processing. This would have facilitated improved on demand directory listing.
George et al. as modified by Badger et al. does not disclose communication channel data indicative of session-level connection for a file system protocol session that carried the directory listing.
However, Cassidy et al. discloses communication channel data indicative of session-level connection for a file system protocol session that carried the directory listing procedure on the different device via a network, wherein the session-level connection information comprises parameters defined by the file system access protocol and associated with an active communication channel to the file system server, and wherein the parameters comprise a network address of the file system server, a transport protocol identifier, and a protocol version identifier (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 Paragraph 83 discloses each proxy 122 may use an ad-hoc method or centralized proxy to determine the network addresses (or the like) of each other).
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.’s directory restoration and Badger’s information processing with Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data.
George et al. as modified by Badger and Cassidy et al. does not disclose based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure on the device over the file system access protocol without idempotent rework.
However, Radi et al. discloses based on the serialized data structure, continuing the directory listing procedure on the device over the file system access protocol without idempotent rework of directory entries that were previously processed returned via the file system server during portions of the directory listing procedure that were previously processed via the different device (Paragraph 49 discloses serialization points for the memory blocks stored at its local shared memory. This arrangement can facilitate a distributed coherence protocol that is scalable and can provide quicker responses to memory messages than a global directory for the distributed memory system due to the directories' locations).
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.’s directory restoration and Badger’s information processing and Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing with Radi et al.’s memory coherence. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data.
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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US Pub. No. 20230385153) and Badger (US Pub. No. 2023042394) and Cassidy et al. (US Pub. No. 20210344771) and Radi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230418642) in further view of Derryberry et al. (US Pub. No. 20210389883).
The George et al. as modified by Badger and Cassidy et al. and Radi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 19. With respect to claim 20, George et al. as modified by Badger and Cassidy et al. and Radi 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.’s directory restoration and Badger’s information processing and Cassidy et al.’s cloud computing with Radi et al.’s memory coherence with Derryberry et al.’s cloud object storage. This would have facilitated improved iteration for managing customer data.
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
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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights