DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 20 in the reply filed on 6/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/5/26.
Examiner’s Suggestion
As to claim 9, lines 1-2, the applicant may wish to rephrase “facilitate efficient storage in the hybrid filesystem of plural revisions of the computer simulation” to “facilitate efficient storage, in the hybrid filesystem, of plural revisions of the computer simulation” for claim clarity.
Claim Objections
As to claim 1, line 6, the phrase “the hybrid filesystem” (with no space in the word “filesystem”) lacks proper antecedent basis as the phrase “a hybrid file system” (with a space in the phrase “file system”) appears previously in the claim.
As to claim 6, the claim has two periods after the claim number.
As to claim 20, line 4, the phrase “the network” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 20, line 7, the phrase “the hybrid filesystem” (with no space in the word “filesystem”) lacks proper antecedent basis as the phrase “a hybrid file system” (with a space in the phrase “file system”) appears previously in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 20 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.
As to claim 1, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “accessing a hybrid file system facilitating raw disk access and filesystem utilities to store blocks of data representing the computer simulation variable block sizes” in lines 3-5 of the claim. A hybrid file system “facilitating” raw disk access and file systems utilities to store blocks of data is less stringent language than, for example, “a hybrid file system configured to allow simultaneous raw disk access and file system utilities to store blocks of data.”
In other words, the examiner is unclear if facilitating raw disk access and file system utilities to store blocks of data could be something as simple as the accessing of the hybrid file system itself. It is unclear to the examiner that any active configuration of the hybrid file system is made to “facilitate” the raw disk access and file system utilities to store blocks of data.
Furthermore, the phrase “to store” in this context is unclear to the examiner. The language does not necessarily convey that any blocks of data are stored. As facilitating raw disk access and file system utilities “to store” blocks of data is not the same as the blocks of data being stored.
Furthermore, the phrase “blocks of data representing the computer simulation variable block sizes” appears to be grammatically incorrect. The examiner is unclear if the phrase is meant to read “blocks of data representing the computer simulation, wherein the blocks of data have variable block sizes” or something of the like.
Finally, the phrase “the computer simulation variable block sizes” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 1, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “storing metadata that can be used by multiple systems simultaneously” in line 8 of the claim. It would seem that any metadata can be used by multiple systems simultaneously if configured to do so. The examiner is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim that the metadata is stored in a single location that can be used by multiple systems simultaneously.
As to claim 1, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of making live updates “without having to shut down one or more systems.” The one or more systems are not linked to the hybrid filesystem by the claim language. Therefore, it would seem any live updating would satisfy the claim language as there are always one or more unrelated systems that are not involved with live updates for another system. For example, updating the hybrid filesystem would not require shutting down the personal computers of users who are not involved with the method of claim 1.
As to claim 1, line 11, the phrase “the computer simulation stored in the hybrid filesystem of the server” lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously refers to storing blocks of data representing the computer simulation variable block sizes, but not the computer simulation itself.
As to claims 2-10, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 1 discussed above.
As to claim 9, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “using reflinks to facilitate efficient storage in the hybrid filesystem” in lines 1-2 of the claim.
The examiner is unclear if using reflinks to facilitate efficient storage in a hybrid filesystem” could be something as simple as the reflinks existing. It is unclear to the examiner that any active configuration of the reflinks and/or the hybrid file system is made to “facilitate” the efficient storage.
As to claim 20, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “accessing a hybrid file system facilitating raw disk access and filesystem utilities to store blocks of data representing the computer simulation variable block sizes” in lines 4-6 of the claim. A hybrid file system “facilitating” raw disk access and file systems utilities to store blocks of data is less stringent language than, for example, “a hybrid file system configured to allow simultaneous raw disk access and file system utilities to store blocks of data.”
In other words, the examiner is unclear if facilitating raw disk access and file system utilities to store blocks of data could be something as simple as the accessing of the hybrid file system itself. It is unclear to the examiner that any active configuration of the hybrid file system is made to “facilitate” the raw disk access and file system utilities to store blocks of data.
Furthermore, the phrase “to store” in this context is unclear to the examiner. The language does not necessarily convey that any blocks of data are stored. As facilitating raw disk access and file system utilities “to store” blocks of data is not the same as the blocks of data being stored.
Furthermore, the phrase “blocks of data representing the computer simulation variable block sizes” appears to be grammatically incorrect. The examiner is unclear if the phrase is meant to read “blocks of data representing the computer simulation, wherein the blocks of data have variable block sizes” or something of the like.
Finally, the phrase “the computer simulation variable block sizes” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 20, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “storing metadata that can be used by multiple systems simultaneously” in line 9 of the claim. It would seem that any metadata can be used by multiple systems simultaneously if configured to do so. The examiner is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim that the metadata is stored in a single location that can be used by multiple systems simultaneously.
As to claim 20, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of making live updates “without having to shut down one or more systems.” The one or more systems are not linked to the hybrid filesystem by the claim language. Therefore, it would seem any live updating would satisfy the claim language as there are always one or more unrelated systems that are not involved with live updates for another system. For example, updating the hybrid filesystem would not require shutting down the personal computers of users who are not involved with the method of claim 20.
As to claim 20, line 12, the phrase “the computer simulation stored in the hybrid filesystem of the server” lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously refers to storing blocks of data representing the computer simulation variable block sizes, but not the computer simulation itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is (571)270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
6/25/26
Prosecution Insights