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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-26 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 16 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 10 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 10, and 16 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-26 are directed to data synchronization. Specifically, the claims recite generating, by a source endpoint device of the endpoint devices, a portion of data; storing, by the source endpoint device and based on a replication policy, copies of the portion of the data at a portion of the endpoint devices, wherein the replication policy defines a set of rules for storing the copies of the portion of the data so that an average latency for accessing a copy of the copies of the portion of the data meets a time threshold; updating a distributed hash map based on the copies of the portion of the data; identifying an occurrence of a data access event for a portion of data hosted by the endpoint devices; based on the occurrence: identifying a portion of the endpoint devices that store copies of the portion of the data using a distributed hash map; obtaining a latency for each endpoint device of the portion of the endpoint devices, the latency indicating a time required for the portion of the data to be retrieved from the respective endpoint device; selecting, based on the latency associated with each endpoint device of the portion of the endpoint devices, one endpoint device of the portion of the endpoint devices;, which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as processor, memory, non-transitory machine readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the processor, memory, non-transitory machine readable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of providing computer-implemented services using the portion of the data. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a processor, memory, non-transitory machine readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of data synchronization. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor, memory, non-transitory machine readable medium, perform(s) the steps or functions of providing computer-implemented services using the portion of the data. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept data synchronization. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 5-9, 12, 14-15, 18, 20-26 further describe the abstract idea of data synchronization. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (20190095106) in view of Schneider (US Patent 10275506) further in view of “Designing a DHT for low latency and high throughput” herein referred to as Dabek.
Regarding claim 1,
Li teaches a method for managing data synchronization between endpoint devices in an edge network, the method comprising: identifying an occurrence of a data access event for a portion of data hosted by the endpoint devices; based on the occurrence: (See paragraphs 86, 62-64, figures 6a, 2a, Li teaches data access request)
identifying a portion of the endpoint devices that store copies of the portion of the data using a distributed hash map; (See paragraphs 87, 62-64, figures 6a, 2a, Li teaches identifying data based on hash map)
obtaining a latency for each endpoint device of the portion of the endpoint devices, the latency indicating a time required for the portion of the data to be retrieved from the respective endpoint device; (See paragraphs 88, 86, 62-64, figures 6a, 2a, Li teaches data access request)
selecting, based on the latency associated with each endpoint device of the portion of the endpoint devices, one endpoint device of the portion of the endpoint devices; (See paragraphs 88, 86, 62-64, figures 6a, 2a, Li teaches data access based on latency)
obtaining the portion of the data from the selected one endpoint device; and (See paragraphs 88, 86, 62-64, figures 6b, 2a, Li teaches receiving the data segment)
Li does not explicitly teach but Schneider teaches providing computer-implemented services using the portion of the data. (See abstract, column 6 lines 35-65, Schneider)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Schneider with Li because both deal with data replication and retrieval. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Schneider into Li is that Schneider coordinating data across services, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See figure 1, Schneider)
Li and Schneider do not explicitly teach but Dabek teaches generating, by a source endpoint device of the endpoint devices, a portion of data; (See sections 2.1-2.4, Dabek teaches a source endpoint generating a portion of data, Dhash)
storing, by the source endpoint device and based on a replication policy, copies of the portion of the data at a portion of the endpoint devices, wherein the replication policy defines a set of rules for storing the copies of the portion of the data so that an average latency for accessing a copy of the copies of the portion of the data meets a time threshold; (See sections 4.1-4.3, Dabek teaches replicated data allows for low latency reads because there are many choices of server selection)
updating a distributed hash map based on the copies of the portion of the data; (See sections 2.2-2.3, 7, Dabek teaches handling of data movement when nodes jhoin and leave, and Dhash)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Dabek with Li and Schneider because both deal with data replication and retrieval. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Dabek into Li and Schneider is that Dabek teaches use of latency predictions based on synthetic coordinates, efficient integration of lookup routing and data fetching, and a congestion control mechanism suitable for fetching data striped over large numbers of servers, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See Section 5, Dabek)
Regarding claim 3,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach the method of claim 1, wherein updating the distributed hash map comprises: assigning a key for the portion of the data, the key being based, at least in part, on a hash function; and storing, using the key, information regarding the copies of the portion of the data in the distributed hash map. (See paragraphs 51, 54, 62, Li)
Regarding claim 5,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach the method of claim 1, wherein the set of rules for storing the copies of the portion of the data indicates: fault domain requirements for replicated copies of stored data; and latency requirements for accessing the replicated copies of stored data. (See paragraphs 4, 41, 56, 88, Li)
Regarding claim 6,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach the method of claim 1.
Schneider further teaches wherein the endpoint devices are members of an overlay network, the overlay network being managed using a set of firewall rules enforced by the endpoint devices.(See abstract, column 6 lines 35-65, Schneider) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach the method of claim 6.
Schneider further teaches wherein obtaining the portion of the data from the selected one endpoint device comprises communicating with the selected one endpoint device while adhering to the set of firewall rules, the firewall rules comprising a first rule set for non-overlay network communications, and a second ruleset for overlay network communication, the second rule set comprising a whitelist for members of the overlay network. (See abstract, column 6 lines 35-65, Schneider) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the portion of the endpoint devices that store copies of the portion of the data using the distributed hash map comprises: performing a lookup in the distributed hash map using a hashed representation of a query as a key to obtain a lookup result that indicates identities of the portion of endpoint devices that stores the copies of the portion of the data. (See paragraphs 65, 66, 67, Li)
Regarding claim 9,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach the method of claim 8, wherein the query comprises: an identity of an endpoint device that generated the portion of the data; a metric of the portion of the data; and a date and/or time that the portion of the data was generated. (See paragraphs 50, 53, 65, Li)
Claims 10, 12, 14-15 list all the same elements of claims 1, 3, 5-6, but in medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1, 3, 5-6 applies equally as well to claims 10, 12, 14-15.
Claims 16, 18, 20 list all the same elements of claims 1, 3, 5-6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1, 3, 5-6 applies equally as well to claims 16, 18, 20.
Regarding claim 21,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15.
Schneider further teaches wherein obtaining the portion of the data from the selected one endpoint device comprises communicating with the ;elected one endpoint device while adhering to the set of firewall rules, the firewall rules comprising a first rule set for non-overlay network communications, and a second rule_set for overlay network communication, the second rule set comprising a whitelist for members of the overlay network. (See column 6 lines 36-65, Schneider) See motivation to combine for claim 1
Regarding claim 22,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach data processing system of claim 16.
Schneider further teaches wherein the endpoint devices are members of an overlay network, the overlay network being managed using a set of firewall rules enforced by the endpoint devices. (See column 6 lines 36-65, Schneider) See motivation to combine for claim 1
Regarding claim 23,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach data processing system of claim 22.
Schneider further teaches wherein obtaining the portion of the data from the selected one endpoint device comprises communicating with the selected one endpoint device while adhering to the set of firewall rules, the firewall rules comprising a first rule set for non-overlay network communications, and a second rule_set for overlay network communication, the second rule set comprising a whitelist for members of the overlay network. (See column 5 lines 10-30 and 6 lines 36-65, Schneider) See motivation to combine for claim 1
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (20190095106) in view of Schneider (US Patent 10275506) further in view of “Designing a DHT for low latency and high throughput” herein referred to as Dabek further in view of Yekhanin (U.S Patent 9244761).
Regarding claim 24,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach method of claim 5.
Li, Schneider, and Dabek do not explicitly teach but Yekhanin teaches wherein the fault domain requirements correspond to utilizing different power sources among the endpoint devices. (See column 4 lines 6-39, Yekhanin)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Yekhanin with Li and Schneider and Dabek because both deal with data replication and retrieval. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Yekhanin into Li and Schneider and Dabek is that Yekhanin teaches the fault-tolerance is provided for large-scale outages while ensuring reliability and availability based on erasure coding data across multiple storage zones, so that data loss is highly suppressed even when the disaster mode lasts for sustained period, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See column 1, Yekhanin)
Regarding claim 25,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14.
Li, Schneider, and Dabek do not explicitly teach but Yekhanin teaches wherein the fault domain -requirements correspond to utilizing different power sources among the endpoint devices. (See column 4 lines 6-39, Yekhanin)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Yekhanin with Li and Schneider and Dabek because both deal with data replication and retrieval. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Yekhanin into Li and Schneider and Dabek is that Yekhanin teaches the fault-tolerance is provided for large-scale outages while ensuring reliability and availability based on erasure coding data across multiple storage zones, so that data loss is highly suppressed even when the disaster mode lasts for sustained period, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See column 1, Yekhanin)
Regarding claim 26,
Li, Schneider, and Dabek teach data processing system of claim 20.
Li, Schneider, and Dabek do not explicitly teach but Yekhanin teaches wherein the fault domain requirements correspond to utilizing different power sources among the endpoint devices.(See column 4 lines 6-39, Yekhanin)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Yekhanin with Li and Schneider and Dabek because both deal with data replication and retrieval. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Yekhanin into Li and Schneider and Dabek is that Yekhanin teaches the fault-tolerance is provided for large-scale outages while ensuring reliability and availability based on erasure coding data across multiple storage zones, so that data loss is highly suppressed even when the disaster mode lasts for sustained period, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See column 1, Yekhanin)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of data synchronization which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to data synchronization does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “processor”, “memory”, “nontransitory machine readable medium” perform(s) the steps or functions of providing computer-implemented services using the portion of the data. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to data synchronization does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “processor”, “memory”, “nontransitory machine readable medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of data synchronization. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Gao, U.S. Patent App 20140359043, teaches a server and/or a client stores a metadata hash map that includes one or more entries associated with keys for data records stored in a cache on a server, wherein the data records comprise Java Virtual Machine (JVM) artifacts or monitoring information. Each of the entries stores metadata for a corresponding data record, wherein the metadata comprises a server-side remote pointer that references the corresponding data record stored in the cache, as well as a version identifier for the key. A selected data record is accessed using a provided key by: (1) identifying potentially matching entries in the metadata hash map using the provided key; (2) accessing data records stored in the cache using the server-side remote pointers from the potentially matching entries; and (3) determining whether the accessed data records match the selected data record using the provided key and the version identifiers from the potentially matching entries.
2. Okamoto, U.S. Patent App 20060277180, teaches a distributed data management system has multiple virtual machine nodes operating on multiple computers that are in communication with each other over a computer network. Each virtual machine node includes at least one data store or "bucket" for receiving data. A digital hash map data structure is stored in a computer readable medium of at least one of the multiple computers to configure the multiple virtual machine nodes and buckets to provide concurrent, non-blocking access to data in the buckets, the digital hash map data structure including a mapping between the virtual machine nodes and the buckets. The distributed data management system employing dynamic scalability in which one or more buckets from a virtual machine node reaching a memory capacity threshold are transferred to another virtual machine node that is below its memory capacity threshold.
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 NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444