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 .
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 20-21,23-31,33-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 20-21,23-29 recite a method, 30-31,33-37 recite an apparatus, and claims 38-41 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis
Regarding claim 30,
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
For step 2A eligibility prong one(does the claim recite a judicial exception?), the claim(s) recite(s) “perform deduplication and compression operations on the first data to obtain second data,”(this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]. Compression operations can also include mathematical concepts as explained in specification par 70 “The compression algorithm may be, for example, a Shannon-Fano algorithm, Huffman encoding, arithmetic encoding, or LZ77/LZ78 encoding. This is not limited in this application. Any existing algorithm that can compress data and a compression algorithm that may be applied in the future are applicable to this embodiment of this application.”. The compression algorithm used in the claim’s compression operations also contain a mathematical concept [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. “mathematical concepts”] ). The claim also recites “returning a write request completion response to the first host”, and “receiving an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data”(the completion/success response implies that there is a mental process of determining if the write/execution is a success, which is directed to mental processes of mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]). The other parts of those limitations “returning a write request completion response to the first host”, “receiving an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data” are considered additional elements, and are considered in step 2A prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test. The claim also recites “deleting the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device”(the “in response to” determination is also directed to mental processes of mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion[MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]). The other parts of those limitations “deleting the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device” are considered additional elements, and are considered in step 2A prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test. As claimed, this process can practically be performed either in the human mind or using a computer as a tool.
Even if the limitations require a computer, it can still be a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. "A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process"]. Performing deduplication and compression operations on data to produce second data, determining if a write request is complete, determining if the write operation execution is successful in the storage device, and responding to an execution success response are directed to mental processes of mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
For step 2A eligibility prong two(does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?), This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “receive a write request sent by a first host, wherein the write request carries first data designated to be backed up to a storage device,”, “after receiving the write request: store the first data in a memory of the data processing apparatus, and return a write request completion response to the first host, obtain the first data from the memory, and store the first data in a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus, obtain the first data from the persistent storage medium,”, “the first data obtained from the persistent storage medium” and “send the second data to the storage device.”, “receive an execution success response from the storage device”, “the storage device storing the second data”, “delete the first data from the persistent storage medium”, “receiving the execution success response from the storage device” are insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, data sending, and presentation[see MPEP 2106.05(g) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.]
The additional computer parts(processor, memory, first host, storage device, data processing apparatus, a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus) are generic components recited at a high level of generality[see MPEP 2106.05(b) “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”]. As a whole, the claims are directed to several abstract mental processes implemented on a generic computer, but are not integrated into a practical application[see MPEP 2106.05(f) “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two”].
The claim’s processor, memory, host, storage device, data processing apparatus, a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus, receiving a write request, storing first data in memory, confirming that the write was completed, retrieving the first data from memory, storing the first data in a persistent storage medium, retrieving the first data from the persistent storage medium, sending second data to a storage device, and sending an execution success response from the storage device when the second date is successfully stored, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations are specified at a high level of generality, and does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims generally link the abstract idea to the field of data storage devices. The same process except for the descriptors would also work for any data storage system in any field(for example, the claim could apply to a distributed cloud storage system, a local computer network, a single server with multiple drives, books in a library, manufacturing robots on a factory floor, weather data, tax data). [See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two” and also MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment”]
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
For step 2B eligibility (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements are either gathering/storing data(“receive a write request sent by a first host, wherein the write request carries first data designated to be backed up to a storage device,”, “after receiving the write request: store the first data in a memory of the data processing apparatus, and return a write request completion response to the first host, obtain the first data from the memory, and store the first data in a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus, obtain the first data from the persistent storage medium,”, “the first data obtained from the persistent storage medium” and “send the second data to the storage device.”, “receive an execution success response from the storage device”, “the storage device storing the second data”, “delete the first data from the persistent storage medium”, “receiving the execution success response from the storage device”), or are additional computer parts that are well known components recited at a high level of generality(processor, memory, first host, storage device, data processing apparatus, a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus).
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because these limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output) [see MPEP 2106.05(g) “(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. “, “(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).”, “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”]
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are also well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions, recited at a high level of generality functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Reference US 2016139849 A1 (Chaw) describes this (par 3 “A common architecture for enterprise computing systems includes a client computer and a storage system, where the client system performed most of the computational intensive tasks using applications programs and the information needed for the computation was retrieved from a storage system.” Par 4 “The storage component has been typically comprised of a server computer and a plurality of hard disk drives for the actual data storage. Files are often used for unstructured data such as images, text and the like …”; par 5 “With disk storage systems, post-storage deduplication may be performed; the data to be written to the storage device is usually first written to a disk and subsequently de-duplicated so as to optimize disk performance. Often the deduplication is not performed until the data is backed up;”). The process of receiving a write request with data, and sending data to a storage device, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional process. Automating a mental process and adding well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality does not qualify as “significantly more” [see MPEP 2106.05 “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));”].
The claim’s (processor, memory, first host, storage device, data processing apparatus, , a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus) generally link the abstract idea to the field of computer data storage devices. The same process except for the descriptors would also work for (a distributed cloud storage system, a local computer network, a single server with multiple drives, books in a library, manufacturing robots on a factory floor, weather data, tax data). [See MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment”]
Combined and considered as a whole, the claim describes a system that takes in a write request with data, de-duplicates and compress the data, and then sends the result to the storage device. The claim as a whole takes the judicial exception and only adds data gathering/storing/presenting steps[MPEP 2106.05(g)], which are conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)], and generic [MPEP 2106.05(h)], and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. [see MPEP 2106.05].
Conclusion: In light of the above, the limitations in claim 30 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claim 30 is therefore not patent eligible.
As for the limitations recited in claims 31,33-37, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Regarding claim 20, It is the method that the apparatus of claim 30 implements and is rejected for the same reasons.
As for the limitations recited in claims 21,23-39, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Regarding claim 38, It is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, enables a data processing apparatus to perform the method that the apparatus of claim 30 implements and is rejected for the same reasons.
As for the limitations recited in claims 39-41, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-21,23,28-31,33,38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016139849 A1 (Chaw).
Regarding claim 30, Chaw teaches,
A data processing apparatus,(fig 2:30; par 34 “The redundant data channel 30 may perform data processing functions on the payloads and commands received from the virtualized environment 10 over the network 20. The redundant data channel 30 may also be known as a gateway or some other term as the front end of the storage media 50, 60.”) comprising:
at least one processor;(fig 3:80; par 44 “Each of the processing channels may have an input buffer memory 65 comprising a non-volatile random access memory (NVRAM) and a controller 80 as well as ancillary memories, buffers, interfaces and the like (which are not shown).”) and
a memory with a computer readable instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, enables the data processing apparatus to: (par 54 “The controller 80 of each active channel may perform data processing functions such as data de-duplication and compression. Each of these functions requires computational and memory resources.”)
receive a write request sent by a first host, wherein the write request carries first data designated to be backed up to a storage device,(fig 2:20,30; par 46 “Data and commands received by each channel of the gateway needs to be securely stored prior to acknowledgment to the user by the storage system.”; par 65 “Each NFS request may include a unique file handle or other identification (which can be used to map to the absolute pathname or metadata of the file) and information about the request. For example, a write request may contain a file offset, a length and a data payload.”)
after receiving the write request: (par 26 “Until the command and any data sent by the user (client) is stored in a non-volatile and redundant manner, the storage system may not acknowledge the command.”)
store the first data in a memory of the data processing apparatus, (par 35 “The passive channel has an role at all times as a NVRAM buffer in the channel is used to temporarily store a copy of data that has been received by the active channel, acknowledged to the user, but no as yet securely stored to the memory system.”) and
return a write request completion response to the first host, (par 26 “Until the command and any data sent by the user (client) is stored in a non-volatile and redundant manner, the storage system may not acknowledge the command.”; par 46 “To avoid confusions, the type of acknowledgement meant here is at a level in the software stack where the apparent execution of the user initiated command is acknowledged.”; par 93 “acknowledging the receipt of the commands and payload data to the user;”)
obtain the first data from the memory, (par 47 “The received data (and commands) is stored in a non-volatile memory (NVM) input buffer upon receipt, and a copy of the received data is sent to the other channel over a data like so as to be stored a NVM backup buffer.”; fig 3:65; par 59 “As the data is dequeued from the each buffer, the head of the queue for the buffer may be maintained by a pointer.”; par 51 “In an example, the input buffer memory 65 may be a NVRAM (non-volatile RAM) device comprising, for example, a volatile random access memory (e.g., DRAM) with a battery or supercapacitor to maintain the data for a period of time after a power failure,…”) and
store the first data in a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus, (par 44 “… input buffer memory 65 comprising a non-volatile random access memory (NVRAM) and a controller 80 as well as ancillary memories, buffers, interfaces and the like (which are not shown). NVRAM may be any memory type that retains data in the event of an interruption of power, the data path, or the execution of other processes by the system.”; par 50 “Commands and data are received at the input buffer memory 65 and as soon as the data is mirrored to the other processing channel (70-A, 70-B) the receipt of the data is acknowledged to the user.”; par 51 “In an example, the input buffer memory 65 may be a NVRAM (non-volatile RAM) device comprising, for example, a volatile random access memory (e.g., DRAM) with a battery or supercapacitor to maintain the data for a period of time after a power failure,…”; fig 3:65; par 59 “As the data is dequeued from the each buffer, the head of the queue for the buffer may be maintained by a pointer.”)
obtain the first data from the persistent storage medium,(par 59 “As the data is dequeued from the each buffer, the head of the queue for the buffer may be maintained by a pointer. Even if the data has been dequeued, the data is not as yet securely stored as it has not been processed by the thread and acknowledged by the storage media 50, 60.”)
perform deduplication and compression operations on the first data obtained from the persistent storage medium to obtain second data,(fig 3:80; par 54 “The controller 80 of each active channel may perform data processing functions such as data de-duplication and compression.”; par 76 “The new (novel) data may be compressed before storage, further reducing the memory requirements, if the data had not previously been compressed by the user. As compression is usually performed after the de-duplication process, data that has already been stored represents the compressed data and the compression step would only be done for new (novel) data to be stored.”),
send the second data to the storage device,(par 75 “…the changed data may be separated from the unchanged data and only the changed data that is not otherwise replicated (novel data) need be stored. This may considerably reduce the write load on the memory array 50, 60.”; claim 5 “The data channel of claim 4, where the data to be stored is compressed after de-duplication and prior to storage in a memory array.”)
receive an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data,(par 66 “That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”) and
delete the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device. (par 12 “After determining whether the data in a particular chunk of data is unique or has already been stored, the unique data is stored in the storage system or the metadata of the deduplication process is updated to reference the chunk of data. When has been performed, the data may be deleted (purged) from the channel buffer and the backup buffer in the channel pair where the data was temporarily stored.”; abstract “Data that is buffered in the first channel may be processed for storage, or for deduplication or compression prior to sending to the storage system subsequent to the acknowledgement of completion of the command and the data may then be purged from the data buffers in the redundant channels.”)
Regarding claim 31, Chaw teaches,
The apparatus according to claim 30,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein the apparatus is a network interface card or a data processing unit (DPU).(fig 2:30; par 34 “The redundant data channel 30 may perform data processing functions on the payloads and commands received from the virtualized environment 10 over the network 20. The redundant data channel 30 may also be known as a gateway or some other term as the front end of the storage media 50, 60.”)
Regarding claim 33, Chaw teaches,
The apparatus according to claim 30,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein deleting the first data (par 12 “After determining whether the data in a particular chunk of data is unique or has already been stored, the unique data is stored in the storage system or the metadata of the deduplication process is updated to reference the chunk of data. When has been performed, the data may be deleted (purged) from the channel buffer and the backup buffer in the channel pair where the data was temporarily stored.”; abstract “Data that is buffered in the first channel may be processed for storage, or for deduplication or compression prior to sending to the storage system subsequent to the acknowledgement of completion of the command and the data may then be purged from the data buffers in the redundant channels.”) comprises deleting a data block duplicated with a data block that has been stored in the storage device from the first data. (fig 3:80; par 54 “The controller 80 of each active channel may perform data processing functions such as data de-duplication and compression.”; par 76 “The new (novel) data may be compressed before storage, further reducing the memory requirements, if the data had not previously been compressed by the user. As compression is usually performed after the de-duplication process, data that has already been stored represents the compressed data and the compression step would only be done for new (novel) data to be stored.”)
Regarding claims 20-21,23, They are the method that the apparatus of claim 30-31, 33 implements and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 30-31, 33.
Regarding claim 28, Chaw teaches,
The method according to claim 20,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein the data processing apparatus communicates with the storage device by using a TCP/IP protocol, a UDP/IP protocol.(par 39 “Data transfer protocols such as SCSI, Fibre Channel, Ethernet may be used simultaneously depending on the specific interface configuration provided for the storage system data channel 30. Individual interface adapters may be user or a converged network adapter (CNA) which a single network interface card (NIC) that contains both a Fibre Channel (FC) host bus adapter (HBA) and a TCP/IP Ethernet NIC connecting servers to PC-based storage area networks (SANs) and Ethernet-based local area networks (LANs).”)
Regarding claim 29, Chaw teaches,
The method according to claim 20,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein the data processing apparatus communicates with the storage device by a fiber channel switch, an Ethernet switch, or an InfiniBand switch.(par 41 “A plurality of memory arrays 50, 60 may communicate with the data channel 30 through another network 40, which may be, for example, a redundant switched Fibre Channel (FC) protocol, local area network (LAN), PCie switched fabric, or the like.”)
Regarding claims 38-40 it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that the apparatus of claims 30-31,34 implements, and is rejected for the same reasons as claims 30-31,34.
Regarding claim 41, Chaw teaches,
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 40,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, further enables the data processing apparatus to:
receive a file creation request; (par 65 ” Each NFS request may include a unique file handle or other identification (which can be used to map to the absolute pathname or metadata of the file) and information about the request. For example, a write request may contain a file offset, a length and a data payload.”; 66 “The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application.”)
forward the file create request to the storage device; (par 66 “A hypervisor may issue synchronous write requests in this environment and delays by the storage system (latency) in acknowledging the secure receipt of the command and payload ( e.g., the data) reduces the system throughput. That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
create, in the second file system of the storage device, a first file that the file creation request requests to create;(par 66 “The hypervisor may mount the NFS volume, … and use it as NAS datastore. The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application. A hypervisor may issue synchronous write requests in this environment … .”)
generate mapping address information of the first file, wherein the mapping address information indicates that data of the first file is located in the data processing apparatus, or indicates an access path of the data of the first file in the data processing apparatus; (par 65 “Each NFS request may include a unique file handle or other identification (which can be used to map to the absolute pathname or metadata of the file) and information about the request. For example, a write request may contain a file offset, a length and a data payload.”; par 74 “Since the user refers to the data by the file handle, Mode, or other logical address or tag, a mapping between the user data reference and the actual storage location needs to also be updated. Most processes described herein use a level of indirection in addressing to facilitate communication between system elements, efficiently perform look up operations and table management and the like. Such housekeeping operations may be presumed.”)
send a creation success response to the data processing apparatus;( par 66 “A hypervisor may issue synchronous write requests in this environment and delays by the storage system (latency) in acknowledging the secure receipt of the command and payload ( e.g., the data) reduces the system throughput. That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
receive the creation success response sent by the storage device;(par 66 “That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
create the first file in the first file system, (par 66 “The hypervisor may mount the NFS volume, which may be exported as a share, and use it as NAS datastore. The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application.”; par 67 “Each virtual machine (guest) managed by the hypervisor may be represented as a set of files in a directory in a datastore.”) wherein the write request requests to store the first data in the first file of the second file system;(par 63 “… the whole file may be written to the storage system in an operation which may appear to the user to be a single atomic operation even if there are some other files or data being transferred contemporaneously.”) and
store the first data in the persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus comprises writing the first data into the first file.(par 68 “The novel chunk may be compressed and then stored in the memory array 450 and metadata created or updated 460.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 24-27, 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016139849 A1 (Chaw) as applied to claims 23,33 above, and further in view of US 10417194 B1 (Desai).
Regarding claim 34, Chaw teaches,
The apparatus according to claim 33,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein: the apparatus further comprises a first file system;
the first file system is a version of a second file system of the storage device;
the write request is a write request based on the second file system;( par 61 “File systems may make changes to a cached version of the file and then write the file back to the storage medium when the file session is closed.) and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further enable the data processing apparatus to store the first data in the persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus by using the first file system.(par 61 “File systems may make changes to a cached version of the file and then write the file back to the storage medium when the file session is closed. Consequently, the files received by the deduplication process may comprise mostly "old" data extents, but may have new data in some data extents which may be unique (novel) and which need to be identified and stored. The "old" (unmodified) data is identified in the deduplication process and only a reference or pointer to the location where the data is stored is maintained in the metadata.”)
However, although Chaw teaches making changes to a cached version of the file, Chaw does not specifically teach the first file system is the same as a second file system of the storage device.
On the other hand, Desai teaches,
a system for accessing distributed file systems(col 1 ln 13-16 “This invention relates generally to distributed file systems, and more particularly to systems and methods for accessing distributed file systems using content delivery networks.”; col 2 ln 32-33 “Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a site cache for processing IO requests on a distributed file system.”), wherein:
the apparatus further comprises a first file system; (fig 2:206; col 5 ln 54-64 “Site cache 206 may comprise a transient object store capable of storing data object …. the transient object store is similar to the authoritative object store. For example, the transient object store may be a local cloud storage install, such as a local OpenStack Swift install, while the authoritative object store may be a public cloud storage, …. The transient object store may be capable of storing data and responding to read and/or write requests in the same manner as object store 104 discussed in reference to FIG. 1.”)
the first file system is the same as a second file system of the storage device; (col 3 ln 20-23 “Client computer 100 may interact with the distributed file system as it would with a traditional file system, such as by writing data to and reading data from the distributed file system.”. The first file system is treated the same as the second file system. To the client, there is no difference.)
the write request is a write request based on the second file system; (fig 2:206; col 5 ln 61-64 “The transient object store may be capable of storing data and responding to read and/or write requests in the same manner as object store 104 discussed in reference to FIG. 1.”) and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further enable the data processing apparatus to store the first data in the persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus by using the first file system. (fig 2:206; col 5 ln 61-64 “The transient object store may be capable of storing data and responding to read and/or write requests in the same manner as object store 104 discussed in reference to FIG. 1.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Chaw to incorporate how the first file system is the same as a second file system of the storage device of Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remedy the shortcomings of Chaw -- a need for how to access files from a distributed file system(Desai col 1 ln 20-30 “Distributed file systems manage files and folders spread 20 across multiple computers. They may serve a similar function as traditional file systems, but are designed to provide file/folder storage and controlled access over local and wide area networks. Some individuals and/or enterprises may rely on distributed file systems …. There is a need, therefore, for an improved method, article of manufacture, and apparatus for accessing a distributed file system.”) -- with Desai providing a known method to solve a similar problem. Desai provides “This invention relates generally to distributed file systems, and more particularly to systems and methods for accessing distributed file systems using content delivery networks.”;(Desai col 1 ln 13-16) “Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a site cache for processing IO requests on a distributed file system.”(Desai col 2 ln 32-33)
Regarding claim 35, Chaw and Desai teaches,
The apparatus according to claim 34,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further enable the data processing apparatus to:
receive a file creation request;(par 65 ” Each NFS request may include a unique file handle or other identification (which can be used to map to the absolute pathname or metadata of the file) and information about the request. For example, a write request may contain a file offset, a length and a data payload.”; 66 “The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application.”)
send the file creation request to the storage device;(par 66 “A hypervisor may issue synchronous write requests in this environment and delays by the storage system (latency) in acknowledging the secure receipt of the command and payload ( e.g., the data) reduces the system throughput. That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
receive a creation success response sent by the storage device;(par 66 “That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”) and
create a first file in the first file system(par 66 “The hypervisor may mount the NFS volume, which may be exported as a share, and use it as NAS datastore. The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application.”; par 67 “Each virtual machine (guest) managed by the hypervisor may be represented as a set of files in a directory in a datastore.”), wherein the write request requests to store the first data in the first file of the second file system,(par 63 “… the whole file may be written to the storage system in an operation which may appear to the user to be a single atomic operation even if there are some other files or data being transferred contemporaneously.”) wherein storing the first data in the persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus comprises writing the first data into the first file of the first file system.(par 68 “The novel chunk may be compressed and then stored in the memory array 450 and metadata created or updated 460.”)
Regarding claim 36, Chaw and Desai teaches,
The apparatus according to claim 35,
Chaw further teaches,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further enable the data processing apparatus to:
after performing the deduplication and compression operations on the data of the first file and storing the data in the storage device, delete the first file stored in the apparatus.(par 12 “After determining whether the data in a particular chunk of data is unique or has already been stored, the unique data is stored in the storage system or the metadata of the deduplication process is updated to reference the chunk of data. When has been performed, the data may be deleted (purged) from the channel buffer and the backup buffer in the channel pair where the data was temporarily stored.”; abstract “Data that is buffered in the first channel may be processed for storage, or for deduplication or compression prior to sending to the storage system subsequent to the acknowledgement of completion of the command and the data may then be purged from the data buffers in the redundant channels.”)
Regarding claim 37, Chaw and Desai teaches,
The apparatus according to claim 35,
Desai further teaches,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the data processing apparatus to:
receive a read request sent by the storage device, wherein the read request requests to read at least a part of data of the first file;(fig 6:600; col 8 ln 30-33 “At block 600, a read request comprising an object identifier is transmitted to the metadata server. This read request could include, for example, an identifier associated with an object the client wishes to read.”) and
send the at least a part of the data of the first file to the storage device. (fig 6:602,604; col 8 ln 51-56 “A 602, the client may receive the site cache location from the MDS in response to the read request. The site cache location may be for a local site cache, or it may be for a site cache at a different location. Finally, at 604, the object associated with the identifier may be read from the site cache.”)
Regarding claim 24, it is the method that the apparatus of claim 34 implements and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 34.
Regarding claim 25, Chaw and Desai teaches,
The method according to claim 24,
Chaw further teaches,
further comprising:
receiving a file creation request;( par 65 ” Each NFS request may include a unique file handle or other identification (which can be used to map to the absolute pathname or metadata of the file) and information about the request. For example, a write request may contain a file offset, a length and a data payload.”; 66 “The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application.)
forwarding the file create request to the storage device; (par 66 “A hypervisor may issue synchronous write requests in this environment and delays by the storage system (latency) in acknowledging the secure receipt of the command and payload ( e.g., the data) reduces the system throughput. That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
creating, in the second file system of the storage device, a first file that the file creation request requests to create; (par 66 “A hypervisor may issue synchronous write requests in this environment and delays by the storage system (latency) in acknowledging the secure receipt of the command and payload ( e.g., the data) reduces the system throughput. That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
generating mapping address information of the first file, wherein the mapping address information indicates that data of the first file is located in the data processing apparatus, or indicates an access path of the data of the first file in the data processing apparatus;(par 65 “Each NFS request may include a unique file handle or other identification (which can be used to map to the absolute pathname or metadata of the file) and information about the request. For example, a write request may contain a file offset, a length and a data payload.”)
sending a creation success response to the data processing apparatus;(par 66 “That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
receiving the creation success response sent by the storage device;(par 66 “That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”)
creating the first file in the first file system, (par 66 “The hypervisor may mount the NFS volume, which may be exported as a share, and use it as NAS datastore. The datastore may be understood broadly to be a container ( or partition) that the hypervisor can use to create and store the files of the virtualized user application.”; par 67 “Each virtual machine (guest) managed by the hypervisor may be represented as a set of files in a directory in a datastore.”;) wherein the write request requests to store the first data in the first file of the second file system; (par 63 “… the whole file may be written to the storage system in an operation which may appear to the user to be a single atomic operation even if there are some other files or data being transferred contemporaneously.”) and
storing the first data in the persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus comprises writing the first data into the first file. (par 68 “The novel chunk may be compressed and then stored in the memory array 450 and metadata created or updated 460.”)
Regarding claim 26, Chaw and Desai teaches,
The method according to claim 25,
Chaw further teaches,
further comprising:
after performing the deduplication and compression operations on the data of the first file and storing the data in the storage device, the first file stored in the data processing apparatus;(par 61 “File systems may make changes to a cached version of the file and then write the file back to the storage medium when the file session is closed. Consequently, the files received by the deduplication process may comprise mostly "old" data extents, but may have new data in some data extents which may be unique (novel) and which need to be identified and stored. The "old" (unmodified) data is identified in the deduplication process and only a reference or pointer to the location where the data is stored is maintained in the metadata.”) and
modifying the mapping address information of the first file to indicate that the data of the first file is stored in the storage device.(par 69 “Once a novel chunk is successfully stored, the deduplication identifier index and the file block map need to be updated to store information regarding the location of the chunk in the memory array memory space.”)
Regarding claim 27, Chaw and Desai teaches,
The method according to claim 25,
Desai further teaches,
further comprising:
receiving a first read request sent by a second host,(col 3 ln 7-10 “While only one client 100 is shown, the system may include multiple clients accessing the distributed file system. Similarly, the system may include multiple object stores 104 and/or multiple MDS 102.”) wherein the first read request is used to read at least a part of the data of the first file;(col 3 ln 20-23 “Client computer 100 may interact with the distributed file system as it would with a traditional file system, such as by writing data to and reading data from the distributed file system.”)
in response to determining that the at least a part of the data of the first file is located in the data processing apparatus, sending a second read request used to read the at least a part of the data of the first file to the data processing apparatus;(par 8 ln 36-48 “If the data has not been flushed to the authoritative object store, but rather exists on a site cache, a read URL for that site cache may be returned to the client. … Additionally or alternatively, the data object may exist in both a site cache and the authoritative object store. The metadata server may generate a URL for both the site cache and the authoritative object store. The client may then attempt to retrieve the data from the site cache first, and the authoritative object store second if there is a failure.”)
reading at least a part of the data of the first file from the data processing apparatus based on the second read request;(par 8 ln 36-48 “If the data has not been flushed to the authoritative object store, but rather exists on a site cache, a read URL for that site cache may be returned to the client.) and
sending the data to the storage device. (fig 6:602,604; col 8 ln 51-56 “A 602, the client may receive the site cache location from the MDS in response to the read request. The site cache location may be for a local site cache, or it may be for a site cache at a different location. Finally, at 604, the object associated with the identifier may be read from the site cache.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks , filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 11/18/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed see remarks pg. 10-12, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the independent claims, the applicant has argued that the amendment introduces limitations that cannot be practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore the claim does not recite a mental process. Those amended limitations are (“storing the first data in a memory of the data processing apparatus, returning a write request completion response to the first host, obtaining the first data from the memory, and storing the first data in a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus; obtaining the first data from the persistent storage medium; writing the second data into the storage device; receiving an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data; deleting the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device.”). Applicant cites(“Memorandum entitled Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, August 4, 2025, section II.A.)”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. If all the limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind, then the claim does not recite a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A. “Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations”]. However, limitations (“perform deduplication and compression operations on the first data to obtain second data,”(mental process and mathematical concepts), determining if a write request is complete(mental process), determining if the write operation execution is successful in the storage device(mental process), and responding to an execution success response(mental process)) are all limitations that are recited at a level of generality that can be performed in the human mind, and only use generic computer components as a tool to perform the mental process.[see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”].
With respect to the independent claims, the applicant has argued that the amended limitations integrate the claim into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 (“storing the first data in a memory of the data processing apparatus, returning a write request completion response to the first host, obtaining the first data from the memory, and storing the first data in a persistent storage medium of the data processing apparatus; obtaining the first data from the persistent storage medium; writing the second data into the storage device; receiving an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data; deleting the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device.”).The examiner respectfully disagrees. (Storing first data, returning a status message about storing first data, reading the stored first data, storing second data, receiving a status message about storing the second data, deleting the stored first data), these are all considered insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, data sending, and presentation[see MPEP 2106.05(g) “Whether the limitation is significant”, “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.]
Applicant's arguments filed see remarks pg. 12-14, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016139849 Al (Chaw); have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the independent claims, the applicant has argued that Chaw does not teach limitations “receive an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data,” and “delete the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device.”. explaining that in the rejection of claims 32 and 33 before the amendment, the deleting data limitation and execution success response from storage device limitations were not properly addressed. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Chaw teaches in the cited (par 66 “That is, the operation may be stateless and further operations are paused until completion of a request, which may be, for example, a remote procedure call (RPC) as is known in the art.”). The examiner interprets this as limitations “receive an execution success response from the storage device in response to the storage device storing the second data”. Chaw teaches in the cited (par 12 “After determining whether the data in a particular chunk of data is unique or has already been stored, the unique data is stored in the storage system or the metadata of the deduplication process is updated to reference the chunk of data. When has been performed, the data may be deleted (purged) from the channel buffer and the backup buffer in the channel pair where the data was temporarily stored.”; abstract “Data that is buffered in the first channel may be processed for storage, or for deduplication or compression prior to sending to the storage system subsequent to the acknowledgement of completion of the command and the data may then be purged from the data buffers in the redundant channels.”). The examiner interprets this as limitations “delete the first data from the persistent storage medium in response to receiving the execution success response from the storage device”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10114829 B1 - Bono - cache storage before flushing out to secondary storage location. file system FS1 nested inside another file system FS2
US 8060476 B1 - Alfonso - backup proxy system with create, write, and close file handling and differential engine for backups.
US 20130290255 A1 - Lin - caching system in a distributed file system
US 20170131934 A1 - Kaczmarczyk - par 386 teaches writing and removing old blocks
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 MICHAEL XU whose telephone number is (571)272-5688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/M.X./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights