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 .
Claims 1-20 are active in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, regarding claims 1, 18 and 20, the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because,
Step 2A: Prong One: yes, invention directed to judicial exception of abstract idea.
In claims 1, 18 and 20, limitations reciting the abstract idea are as follows:
“creating, in response to the request, a container at the storage appliance to implement the version of the application; analyzing, by the container, first data stored for the version of the application…”, is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and applied in a computing environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category"); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that "humans have always performed these functions").
The limitations are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or generic tools. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, the it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements “receiving a request…”, “outputting…a result of analyzing”, the limitations are a mere generic function which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/collecting, MPEP 2106.05(g)) that does not confer patent eligibility. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), aff'g 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (explaining that “[s]toring, retrieving, and providing data... are inconsequential data gathering and insignificant post solution activity”).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than abstract idea. Aside from the abstract idea, the additional elements (receiving, outputting) are conventional and well known (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an "interface," “processor”, "network," and "database," fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607,614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea).
Additionally, dependent claims incorporate the features of the corresponding independent claims. Dependent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rogers (US 2021/0117859).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 20, Rogers discloses a method, a data management system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions, and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing code that comprises instructions executable, individually or collectively, by one or more processors (Figure 9), comprising:
receiving a request to mount a version of an application at a storage appliance ([0022], a newer, better model, update to a newer, better model, a new container image, which then becomes a new version of the application and [0023], “These models instead can be mounted into containers from storage on a system where the container is running. In various embodiments, a service component can be utilized that can pull updated model versions to the local storage on the system or edge node. In at least one embodiment, an edge manager mechanism can then be used to signal a running inference container application to switch to a different model version” and [0037]-[0038], “a new version of the model can be mounted 510 to the application container along with the new configuration information. New or updated configuration information, or application context, can be created 512 or otherwise obtained that corresponds, or points, to the new version of the model”);
creating, in response to the request, a container at the storage appliance to implement the version of the application ([0021], “the application may be containerized. Often, the servers and application deployments are managed by a container orchestration platform, such as the open source Kubernetes platform. In at least some embodiments, an application container can include, or consist of, an entire runtime environment for an application, including various libraries, binaries, dependencies, and configuration files for the application.”, [0022]-[0023], [0037]-[0038]);
analyzing, by the container, first data stored for the version of the application, the first data stored at the storage appliance external to the container ([0027], [0036], new configuration data can be received, generated, or otherwise obtained that specifies use of the second version with the application and [0037], “information for this model can be detected 406 in the manifest, and the corresponding model (and version, etc.) can be obtained from a model store, or other such source, and stored in a local directory, such as a model-specific directory or sub-directory of a local storage volume. At an appropriate time, the application container can be launched 408 on the edge server. As part of the launch process in this example, the model can be mounted 410 from the local directory into the application container for use by the inferencing application” and [0038]-[0039]); and
outputting, by the container, a result of analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application ([0037]-[0038], “information for this model can be detected 406 in the manifest, and the corresponding model (and version, etc.) can be obtained from a model store, or other such source, and stored in a local directory, such as a model-specific directory or sub-directory of a local storage volume. At an appropriate time, the application container can be launched 408 on the edge server. As part of the launch process in this example, the model can be mounted 410 from the local directory into the application container for use by the inferencing application…a new version of the model can be mounted 510 to the application container along with the new configuration information. New or updated configuration information, or application context, can be created 512 or otherwise obtained that corresponds, or points, to the new version of the model”).
Regarding claim 2, Rogers discloses wherein the request is received at the storage appliance from a computing system via an external network ([0022]-[0023], [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Rogers discloses wherein creating the container comprises: allocating computing resources to the container and installing software for operating the version of the application on the computing resources ([0022]-[0023], [0037]-[0038] and [0041]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Rogers discloses wherein analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: verifying, by the container, the first data stored for the version of the application ([0027], [0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Rogers discloses wherein outputting the result of analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: outputting, in accordance with verifying the first data stored for the version of the application, a response confirming an integrity of the first data stored for the version of the application ([0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Rogers discloses wherein the response confirming the integrity of the first data stored for the version of the application confirms a transactional consistency of the first data stored for the version of the application ([0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Rogers discloses wherein analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: scanning, by the container, the version of the application for malware based at least in part on the first data stored for the version of the application ([0027], [0036]-[0039] and [0113]).
Regarding claim 9, Rogers discloses wherein outputting the result of analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: outputting, based at least in part on the scanning, a response indicating a detection of malware in the first data stored for the version of the application ([0027], [0036]-[0039], [0113] and [0125]).
Regarding claim 10, Rogers discloses wherein analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: executing, by the container, a data classification process for the first data stored for the version of the application, wherein the first data stored for the version of the application is analyzed as part of the data classification process ([0027], [0036]-[0039], [0113]-[0114] and [0125]).
Regarding claim 11, Rogers discloses wherein outputting the result of analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: outputting, in accordance with the data classification process, a response indicating one or more types of data included in the first data stored for the version of the application, a quantity of tables in the application, or both ([0027], [0036]-[0039], [0113]-[0114] and [0125]).
Regarding claim 12, Rogers discloses allocating computing resources to the container based at least in part on the one or more types of data included in the first data stored for the version of the application, the quantity of tables in the application, or both ([0054], [0056] and [0126]).
Regarding claim 13, Rogers discloses wherein allocating the computing resources to the container comprises: decreasing an amount of additional computing resources allocated to the container based at least in part on the one or more types of data included in the first data stored for the version of the application, the quantity of tables in the application, or both ([0054], [0056] and [0126]).
Regarding claim 14, Rogers discloses creating, based at least in part on the request, a second container at the storage appliance, wherein the container is configured to operate the application, and wherein the second container is configured to perform, for the first data stored for the version of the application, a data classification process, a malware detection process, a data verification process, a database verification process, or any combination thereof ([0021]-[0023], [0036]-[0039], [0113]-[0114] and [0125]).
Regarding claim 15, Rogers discloses wherein analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: operating, by the container, a database application based at least in part on the first data stored for the version of the application ([0027], [0057], [0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Rogers discloses receiving, at the container, a database request associated with the version of the application, wherein the application is a database application, and wherein analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application is based at least in part on the database request ([0129]).
Regarding claim 17, Rogers discloses wherein: the database request is a database query, analyzing the first data stored at the storage appliance comprises querying the first data stored at the storage appliance in accordance with the database query, and outputting the result of analyzing the first data stored for the version of the application comprises outputting a response to the database query ([0036]-[0039] and [0129]).
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 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 of this title, 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2021/0117859) and in view of McPherson (US 2018/0129479).
Regarding claim 7, Roger discloses all the claim subject matter as set forth above. However, Rogers is silent as to confirming the integrity of the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: performing checksum operations on one or more sets of data in the first data stored for the version of the application, and wherein the one or more sets of data comprise user data, metadata, or both. On the other hand, McPherson teaches confirming the integrity of the first data stored for the version of the application comprises: performing checksum operations on one or more sets of data in the first data stored for the version of the application, and wherein the one or more sets of data comprise user data, metadata, or both (McPherson: [0011], identify signatures [0026]-[0027] and [0038], identifying signatures may be hashes, checksums or some other unique identifier such as metadata). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to performing checksum operations on one or more sets of data in the first data stored for the version of the application, and wherein the one or more sets of data comprise user data, metadata, or both as suggested by McPherson. The motivation would have been to enhance the Rogers system for better integrity verification process.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mufti (US 2023/0138337) discloses coordinated data backup for a container system.
Derryberry (US 2021/0389883) discloses cloud object storage and versioning system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERILYN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-4026. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571) 272-8352. The fax phone 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.
/MERILYN P NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
12/12/2025