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 .
Response to Amendment
2. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment includes the amending of claims 1, 6, and 11.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2026 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
4. The objections raised in the Office Action mailed on 03/12/2026 have been overcome by applicant’s amendment received on 06/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 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”) 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 on the 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
8. 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.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on Page 06 that “All stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed, accommodated, or rendered moot”. However, the independent claims 1, 6, and 11 still have an outstanding indefiniteness issue that has not been addressed by the applicants (See above).
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).
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
12. 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
June 22, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights