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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2021/0097107) in view of Mahony et al. (US 2021/0141759), in view of Gough et al. (US 2015/0261455), and further in view of S2Geometry (S2 Cells).
Regarding claim 1, Patel discloses a distributed digital object storage system comprising: at least one non-transitory computer readable memory storing a suite of software instructions; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory and that performs the following operations upon execution of the software instructions:
establishing, in the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, at least one erasure coding policy for a dataset, the at least one erasure coding policy including distribution criteria defined based on a data chunk type attribute associated with the dataset [see paragraphs 36-37; data may be erasure coded and stored to distributed storage system based on object level and chunk level metadata];
creating multiple object blocks from the dataset, each block of the multiple object blocks having a data chunk type attribute [see paragraph 36; chunk level metadata for each chunk];
establishing separated block storage locations among the distributed storage devices for the multiple object blocks according to the distribution criteria including the data chunk type attributes of the multiple object blocks; and storing, the multiple object blocks at their respective separated block storage locations on the distributed storage devices according to the erasure coding policy [see paragraphs 37 &43-47; data is distributed to and stored on different regions of storage devices based on erasure coding chunk level metadata].
Patel does not expressly disclose the erasure coding policy being based on location attributes associated with distributed storage node locations of distributed storage nodes and storing over a network multiple object blocks on distributed storage nodes.
Mahony discloses an erasure coded distributed storage system in which the locations of erasure coded fragments may be distributed across a network to storage domains located in differing storage nodes geographically located at different location sites [see paragraphs 28, 41, 47, 55 & 67-70; Erasure coded object stored across a network in a location that meets ILM requirements (ILM requirements indicate a location criteria of object copies (i.e. location attribute)) An ILM criteria selected by a user may also indicate a S3 bucket region (location constraint)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the geographically distributed teachings of Mahony in the system of Patel.
The motivation for doing so would have been so that object may be protected against a failure of an entire site [see Mahony, paragraphs 27 & 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mahony with Patel for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-19 and 21-22.
The combination of Patel and Mahony does not expressly disclose the erasure coding policy includes at least a specified distance between storage node locations.
Gough discloses an erasure coded storage system in which the erasure coding policy specifies using a maximum distance between storage devices when distributing the erasure coded data [see paragraphs 20 & 23].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the distance requirements of Gough on the system of Patel and Mahony when storing erasure coded data.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce catastrophic data loss [see Gough, paragraph 14].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Patel and Mahony with Gough for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-19 and 21-22.
The combination of Patel, Mahony and Gough teaches that the locations of the geographically dispersed storage locations may be identified using location attributes [see Gough, paragraphs 20-22; coordinates or city may be used for erasure coded location attributes & see Mahony, paragraphs 43 & 47; ILM (erasure coding) requirements indicate a location criteria of object copies (i.e. location attribute)) and an ILM criteria selected by a user may also indicate a S3 bucket region (location constraint)]. Additionally, Mahony, at paragraph 28, discloses storage system operates in a common object namespace.
However, the combination does not expressly disclose the location attributes adhere to a common hierarchical namespace including S2 cell identifiers, each of the distributed storage node includes a location attribute having an S2 cell identifier value indicating a location of the distributed storage node according to a hierarchy of S2 cells.
S2Gometry discloses the concept of using a hierarchy of S2 cell coordinate identifiers (location identifiers) to help map physical locations (e.g. on a globe/earth) [see About S2 Cells, S2CellID Numbering & Overview]. Additionally, the S2 cells may be used to measure distances between objects [see Scope].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the S2 cell coordinate identifiers of S2Geometry in the system of Patel, Mahony and Gough as the location attributes to locate the geographically separated storage devices when storing erasure coded data.
The motivation for doing so would have been:
to aid in spatial locality and for better determining specific geographic locations on Earth’s surface [see Spherical geometry],
for precision and accuracy [see Robustness],
to give clients as much control as possible [see Flexibility], and
for improved performance on large geographic datasets [see Performance].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine S2Geometry with Patel, Mahony and Gough for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-19 and 21-22.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the location attributes comprise location identifiers [see Mahony, paragraph 34; erasure coding may utilize metadata such as a storage site identifier].
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 2, wherein the location identifiers comprise geographic location identifiers [see Mahony, paragraph 34; erasure coding may utilize metadata such as a storage site identifier].
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the location attributes adhere to location address space of the distribute storage nodes [see Patel, paragraphs 37 & 129; system comprises distributed addressing, object/chunk metadata will include an identifier of the geographic location of the chunk].
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 6, wherein each of the multiple object blocks have identifiers adhering to the location address space [see Patel, paragraphs 37 & 129; system comprises distributed addressing, object/chunk metadata will include an identifier of the geographic location of the chunk].
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 7, wherein the location address space comprises a hash address space [see Patel, paragraphs 37 & 129; system comprises distributed addressing, object/chunk metadata will include an identifier of the geographic location of the chunk].
Regarding claim 9 the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the data chunk type attributes adhere to a common namespace [see Mahony, paragraph 28; storage system operates in a common object namespace].
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 9, wherein the common namespace comprises an a priori defined namespace [see Mahony, paragraph 28; storage system operates in a common object namespace].
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 9, wherein the common namespace comprises attribute-value pair parameters [see Mahony, paragraph 28; storage system operates in a common object namespace].
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the distributed storage nodes comprise at least one of the following: a network area storage system, a storage area network system, or a RAID system [see Mahony, paragraph 28; network storage system].
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the at least one erasure coding policy enforces a code rate representing a ratio (r) of a number of blocks in the dataset (k) to a total number of block in the multiple object blocks (n), wherein n is greater than k [see Mahony, paragraphs 67-70; erasure coding produces a ratio of a number of data fragments to parity fragments].
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the data chunk type attribute of at least one block in the multiple object blocks represents a data chunk [see Patel, paragraphs 37 & 65; identifier indicates if chunk is deduplicated or not as well as type of chunk, chunk may be data or parity].
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 17, wherein the data chunk type attribute of the at least one block in the multiple object blocks represents a redundant data chunk [see Patel, paragraph 37; identifier indicates if chunk is deduplicated or not].
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses the distributed digital object storage system of claim 1, wherein the data chunk type attribute of at least one block in the multiple object blocks represents a parity chunk [see Patel, paragraphs 37 & 65; identifier indicates if chunk is deduplicated or not as well as type of chunk, chunk may be data or parity].
Claims 21-22 recite similar limitations to claim 1 above and are rejected using similar citations and mappings.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry and further in view of Whitlock et al. (US 2021/0263667).
Regarding claim 4, Patel, Mahony Gough and S2Geometry disclose the distributed digital object storage system of claim 2 as discussed above.
The combination does not expressly disclose the location identifiers comprise at least one of the following: a zip code, a longitude, a latitude, or a plus code.
Whitlock discloses an erasure coded distributed storage system in which storage node locations may be identified using GPS longitude and latitude identifiers [see paragraphs 233 & 236].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Whitlock in the system of Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry.
The motivation for doing so would have been apply a known technique (using GPS coordinates) to yield predictable results, e.g. to geographically locate a storage node.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Whitock with Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry disclose the system of claim 12, as discussed above, including storing data to geographically different sites to provide data protection for node/site failures.
The combination does not expressly disclose the nodes being separated by 100 or 1000 miles.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a distance of 100 or 1000 miles between storage nodes.
The motivation for doing so would have been that it would have been obvious to try a 100 mile to 1000 mile solution among a finite number of distances to yield predictable results (fault separation between sites) with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(E)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 13-14.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry and further in view of Tian (US 2021/0081403).
Regarding claim 20, Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combination does not expressly disclose the operations further include recording an event related to at least one block in the multiple object blocks on a notarized ledger.
Tian discloses a storage system using erasure coding to distribute data across storage, in which data is recorded to a distributed ledger system (blockchain network) [see paragraph 5].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the blockchain system of Tian in the system of Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry.
The motivation for doing so would have been to leverage immutability, reliability, and trustworthiness of data stored on the blockchain [see Lian, paragraph 26].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lian with Patel, Mahony, Gough and S2Geometry for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s note: The previously cited S2Geometry prior art has been updated to include additional pages from the link provided in the 892 previously cited.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants argue that neither Patel, Mahoney nor Gough teach or suggest the use of S2 cell identifiers as location attributes of an erasure coding policy. Additionally, S2Geometry does not suggest using S2 cell identifiers as part of an erasure coding policy. However, the arguments fail to address the combination of references as a whole. The combination of Patel, Mahoney and Gough disclose the usage of an erasure coding policy. Location attributes may be used to guide an erasure coding policy on the location of storage devices/nodes of where data objects should be stored. Gough lists specific geographic locations used for the distance calculations between storage nodes in paragraph [0015], which specify "city, datacenter, nearest router, nearest switch, network hops from a network device, rack, drive bay, and slot”. Mahony, in paragraphs 43 & 47, discusses creating erasure coding fragments based on ILM requirements which indicate a location criteria of object copies (i.e. location attribute)), and an ILM criteria selected by a user may also indicate a S3 bucket region (location constraint). S2Geometry discloses a method of defining physical locations using a hierarchy of S2 cells. The S2 hierarchy is useful for spatial indexing and for approximating regions as a collection of cells. Cells can be used to represent both geographic points and regions. The rejection contends that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the S2 cell coordinate identifiers of S2Geometry in the erasure coding system of Patel, Mahony and Gough as the location attributes to locate the geographically separated storage devices when storing erasure coded data. The motivation for doing so will be discussed next.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicants argue that the mere existence of S2 cell identifiers as taught by S2Geometery, is insufficient to render obvious all of the recited features of the amended claims. However, Examiner make no such argument. The usage of using S2 cell identifiers to determine locations offers many benefits. They aid in spatial locality and for better determining specific geographic locations on Earth’s surface [see Spherical geometry], they are highly precise and accurate [see Robustness], they give clients as much control as possible [see Flexibility], and
they improve performance when operating on large geographic datasets [see Performance]. Additionally, they make it possible to build a worldwide geographic database with no seams or singularities, using a single coordinate system, and with low distortion everywhere compared to the true shape of the Earth [see S2 Geometry]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the hierarchy of S2 cell coordinate identifiers of S2Geometry in the system of Patel, Mahony and Gough as the location attributes of the erasure coding policy for any of the above cited benefits. For example, Gough teaches a city may be used as a location identifier. However, cities can be quite large (several miles) in size, and it would be beneficial to instead use a S2 cell identifier as the location attribute so that a location may be more precisely and accurately chosen for storing objects of an erasure coding policy taught by the combination of Patel, Mahony and Gough.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137