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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 7/17/26, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 5, 1212-14, and 18-20, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 each recites performing, by a data management system, a cluster-level precheck procedure that determines whether a cluster of storage nodes is prepared for updating software for the cluster of storage nodes from a first version to a second version; performing, by the data management system, based at least in part on a successful result of the cluster-level precheck procedure, a node-level precheck procedure that determines whether one or more storage nodes within the cluster of storage nodes are prepared for updating the software for the cluster of storage nodes from the first version to the second version; and performing, by the data management system, an update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the successful result of the cluster-level precheck procedure and a successful result of the node-level precheck procedure, wherein the update procedure comprises updating the software for the cluster of storage nodes from the first version to the second version. Performing a cluster-level procedure, a node-level procedure, and an update procedure are each recited broadly and are each executed based on successful result of a previous software procedure, which is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 12 recites one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions and claim18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are each generic components of a computer. Each claim recites no other additional elements. Examiner notes Applicant "improve the functioning of a data management system by reducing the quantity of failures during a non-disruptive update procedure" and cited specification paragraphs 0057-0058 that says "to reduce a likelihood of errors during an update procedure." These paragraphs recite some conditions under which a software update may fail but the claims recite no techniques for determining such conditions. The claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the one or more processors, one or more memories storing instructions, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are each still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 13, and 19 each recites obtaining information for updating the software of the cluster of storage nodes from the first version to the second version, wherein the cluster-level precheck procedure, the node-level precheck procedure, or both, are performed based at least in part on obtaining the information, and obtaining information is a data gathering step and receiving data over a network per specification paragraph 0016 and figure 1 network 120, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claim 3 recites wherein the cluster-level precheck procedure is performed prior to initiating the update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes, and performing the precheck procedure is still associated with determining whether a cluster of storage nodes is prepared for updating, and determining is evaluating and is a mental process. Claim 4 recites wherein the node-level precheck procedure is performed at least partially concurrent with the update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes and prior to initiating respective update procedures for respective storage nodes of the one or more storage nodes, and performing the precheck procedure is still associated with determining whether a cluster of storage nodes is prepared for updating, and determining is evaluating and is a mental process.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 each recites determining, during the update procedure, whether to delay an update of a storage node of the one or more storage nodes based at least in part on the successful result of the node-level precheck procedure, and determining whether to delay is evaluating and a mental process. Claims 6 and 15 each recites determining, prior to an initiation of the update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes, that the one or more storage nodes are in a state for successful update, and determining that one or more storage nodes is in a state is evaluating and a mental process; determining, after the update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes is initiated and during the node-level precheck procedure, that a storage node of the one or more storage nodes has exited the state for successful update, and determining that one or more storage nodes has exited a state is evaluating and a mental process; delaying an update of the storage node based at least in part on determining that the storage node is no longer in the state for successful update, and determining whether to delay is evaluating and a mental process; and providing, via a user interface, an indication that the update of the storage node is delayed, which is recited broadly and amounts to sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0016 and figure 1 network 120, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Claim 7 recites determining, based at least in part on the node-level precheck procedure, that a storage node of the one or more storage nodes is in a state for successful update, and determining that a storage node is in a state is evaluating and a mental process; and updating the storage node based at least in part on determining that the storage node is in the state for successful update, and updating the storage node is executing software and is recited broadly and a mental process, and determining that a storage node is in a state is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 8 recites determining, based at least in part on performing the node-level precheck procedure, that a storage node of the one or more storage nodes is prepared for updating based at least in part on an amount of storage space at the storage node exceeding a threshold, and determining an amount of storage space is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 9 recites determining, based at least in part on performing the node-level precheck procedure, that a storage node of the one or more storage nodes is prepared for updating based at least in part on an identification that the storage node is configured with a floating internet protocol address, and determining that a storage node is configured with a floating internet protocol address is evaluating and a mental process.
Claim 10 recites performing the node-level precheck procedure for the one or more storage nodes prior to initiating the update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes, which is still based on determining whether one or more storage nodes within the cluster of storage nodes are prepared for updating and determining is evaluating and a mental process; and initiating the update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the cluster-level precheck procedure and the node-level precheck procedure indicating that the one or more storage nodes are prepared for updating, and determining that the one or more storage nodes are prepared for updating is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 11 recites performing a first precheck procedure for determining whether the cluster of storage nodes is in a first state for successful update using a first type of update procedure associated with updating each storage node of the cluster of storage nodes in parallel, the first precheck procedure comprising a second cluster-level precheck procedure, and determining whether a cluster of storage nodes is in a state is evaluating and a mental process; and performing a second precheck procedure for determining whether the cluster of storage nodes is in a second state for successful update using a second type of update procedure associated with updating storage nodes of the cluster of storage nodes in series, the second precheck procedure comprising the cluster-level precheck procedure and the node-level precheck procedure, and determining whether a cluster of storage nodes is in a state is evaluating and a mental process.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Liu (US 20190205110) teaches using test services to check the operability and quality of generated source code and testing a software update on a virtual machine (node) after completion of the update, does not teach a node-level or a cluster-level precheck or verifying a test was successful before a node-level precheck or a software update (paragraphs 0011, 0026-0029 figure 3); and
Qureshi et al (US 20180196471) teaches deploying and testing software packages, teaches pooling devices to determine if they are ready to receive updates (paragraph 0016), does not teach a node-level or a cluster-level precheck or verifying a testing software package was successful before a node-level precheck or a software update (0014, 0016, 0044, 0078-0089 figure 8).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 7, 14, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,618 in view of Shah, in view of Applicant filing and the Office approving a Terminal Disclaimer on 7/17/26 for this patent, these rejections are withdrawn per MPEP 804.02(VI). Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 18-19 by Shah, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 5 by Shah in view of David, claims 6 and 15 by Shah in view of Srinivasan, and claim 9 by Shah in view of Zhu, Applicant’s amendments overcome Shah’s teachings, in particular performing a node-level precheck procedure and performing a node-level precheck procedure based on a successful result of a cluster-level precheck procedure, thus these rejections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On page 10 of his Remarks Applicant asserts “Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application for at least the reason that they include features that improve the functioning of a data management system by reducing the quantity of failures during a non-disruptive update procedure,” and excerpts specification paragraphs 0057-0058 as support. Examiner notes a non-disruptive update procedure is not claimed. Applicant recites the three amended limitations ("performing, by a data management system, a cluster-level precheck procedure that determines whether a cluster of storage nodes is prepared for updating software for the cluster of storage nodes from a first version to a second version," and "performing, by the data management system, based at least in part on a successful result of the cluster-level precheck procedure, a node-level precheck procedure that determines whether one or more storage nodes within the cluster of storage nodes are prepared for updating," and "performing, by the data management system, an update procedure for the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the successful result of the cluster-level precheck procedure and a successful result of the node-level precheck procedure, wherein the update procedure comprises updating the software for the cluster of storage nodes from the first version to the second version,") and asserts “the full technical benefit of the two pre-check procedures are realized” in the third limitation. Examiner disagrees as each limitation still broadly recites performing pre-check procedures and executing an update procedure and they do not recite details that might show how the invention addresses the improvement of reducing a quality of failures during a non-disruptive update procedure. For example, the claims do not recite how the invention determines a cluster of storage nodes or one or more storage nodes within the cluster are prepared for an update, what a successful result means for a cluster-level pre-check procedure or a node-level pre-check procedure. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., 'thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel')."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 9/22/26
Prosecution Insights