Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/661,835

REMOTE CLONING OF FILES IN DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 13, 2024
Examiner
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
Art Unit
2168
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Netapp Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
521 granted / 751 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
772
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 751 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment 3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment includes the amending of claims 1, 6, and 11. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 has been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 5. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the clone request causing the remote node to record, prior to creation of the clone, an intent record identifying the clone and a delegation record that exclusively delegates modification authority for file to the local node during clone creation” is grammatically incoherent and should be replaced with “the clone request causing the remote node to record, prior to creation of the clone, an intent record identifying the clone and a delegation record that exclusively delegates modification authority on the file to the local node during clone creation”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-18 are objected to for incorporating the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 respectively. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the delegation record preventing any modifications to the file that would cause the file to no longer match a point in time at which the clone is created” is grammatically incoherent and should be replaced with “wherein the delegation record prevents any modifications to the file that would cause the file to no longer match a point in time at which the clone is created”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-18 are objected to for incorporating the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 8. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, it is unclear as to how there can be no modifications to the file (See limitation “wherein the delegation record preventing any modifications to the file that would cause the file to no longer match a point in time at which the clone is created”) when the local node is granted exclusive modification authority (See earlier limitation of “the clone request causing the remote node to record, prior to creation of the clone, an intent record identifying the clone and a delegation record that exclusively delegates modification authority for file to the local node during clone creation”) on that file. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-18 are rejected to for incorporating the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 respectively. Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 1, 6, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Specifically, although the prior art (See Bohle), clearly grants (and stores) delegation information for read/write requests on data, Martynov stores an intent record before creating a clone of a file, and Bharathy stores an exclusive lease lock during creation of a clone, the detailed claim language directed towards the storage before the creation of the clone of both the defined intent record and the defined delegation record in response to the received clone request is not found in the prior art in conjunction with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-18 are deemed allowable for depending on the deemed allowable subject matter of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 respectively. Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent 9,223,500, by Lemar et al., issued on 29 December 2015. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-18 (e.g., methods to clone files). Contact Information 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Mahesh Dwivedi Primary Examiner Art Unit 2168 March 10, 2026 /MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
May 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591818
FORECASTING AND MITIGATING CONCEPT DRIFT USING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585690
COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM STORING INFORMATION VERIFICATION PROGRAM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12561366
Real-Time Micro-Profile Generation Using a Dynamic Tree Structure
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561469
INFERRING SCHEMA STRUCTURE OF FLAT FILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554730
HYBRID DATABASE IMPLEMENTATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+4.3%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 751 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month