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
This action is response to the communication filed on May 13, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, 22-23, 25-29 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding art rejection filed on May 13, 2026 have been considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. The 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in the view of claims amendment. Applicant arguments regarding 101 rejection are not persuasive.
(1) Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues a human mind cannot “store at least two objects of the plurality of objects in a metadata storage of a solid-state storage device, thereby creating a plurality of inlined objects in the metadata storage”
In response examiner respectfully disagree. User (i.e. human) can memorize information such as data or metadata object as claimed which is a mental process. Further, the solid-state storage device as claimed is nothing but generic computer component and a generic computer can perform those functions (store object or create object) which the courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Hence applicant argument is not persuasive.
(2) Applicant further argue human mind cannot coalesce a subset of the plurality of objects to create at least one coalesced object, wherein a first coalesced object of the at least one coalesced object is associated with t a bulk identifier and modify a metadata of a firs inlined object of the subset of the plurality of inlined objects to indicate the bulk identifier and a position of the first inlined object within the first coalesced object.
Applicant argument is not persuasive as these limitations can be interpreted as additional limitation but insignificant extra-solution activity. The coalescing steps as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the detection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, the modifying a metadata step is nothing but a data manipulation can be done with a generic computer component which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefor these limitations fall under 101 mental processes.
(3) Applicant further argues claims directed to a specific technical improvement in computer storage architecture by improving the storage and retrieval of objects which integrate that judicial exception into a practical application.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. First of all, the claims do not directed to retrieval of object, it directed to storing of objects. The functionality being recited in the claims can be done with generic computer component. The computer system as recited in the claim is nothing but a generic computer component and the courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence applicant argument is not persuasive.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, 22-23, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites a solid-state storage device comprising at least one memory comprising a metadata storage and a cache; and one or more computer processors coupled to the at least one computer memory; wherein the at least one memory comprises computer-readable instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more computer processors to: receive a plurality of objects at the solid-state storage device; store at least two objects of the plurality of objects in the metadata storage, thereby creating a plurality of inlined objects in the metadata storage; store at least one object of the plurality of objects in the cache based on one or more properties of the at least one object; coalesce a subset of the plurality of objects to create at least one coalesced object, wherein a first coalesced object of the at least one coalesced object is associated with t a bulk identifier; modify a metadata of a firs inlined object of the subset of the plurality of inlined objects to indicate the bulk identifier and a position of the first inlined object within the first coalesced object; and store the at least one coalesced object in an object store at a network.
The claim recited the limitation of store at least two objects of the plurality of objects in the metadata storage, thereby creating a plurality of inlined objects in the metadata storage; store at least one object of the plurality of objects in the cache based on one or more properties of the at least one object; and store the at least one coalesced object in an object store at a network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can memorize the received data (plurality of object) which is a mental process. If necessary, user can use physical aid such as paper and pencil. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Hence, these limitations are a mental process.
The claim recites three additional elements: receive a plurality of objects at the solid-state storage device, coalesce a subset of the plurality of objects to create at least one coalesced object, wherein a first coalesced object of the at least one coalesced object is associated with a bulk identifier, and modify a metadata of a firs inlined object of the subset of the plurality of inlined objects to indicate the bulk identifier and a position of the first inlined object within the first coalesced object. The receiving and coalescing steps as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the detection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, the modifying a metadata step is nothing but a data manipulation can be done with a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receive a plurality of objects, coalesce a subset of the plurality of objects, and modify a metadata amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of an inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects has a size of about 64 kibibytes (KiB) or less, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of the one or more computer processors being configured to coalesce the subset of the plurality of inlined objects to create the at least one coalesced inlined object comprises the one or more computer processors being configured to combine two or more inlined objects of the plurality of objects into a coalesced inlined object of the at least one coalesced object, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of remove content of the inlined objects from the metadata storage upon being coalesced, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of each object of the plurality of objects is associated with a unique identifier, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of the one or more properties comprises: a. a date of access; or b. a size, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of the one or more computer processors are further configured to cause the system to remove a first object of the at least one object of the one or more objects from the cache based on the one or more properties, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 22 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of wherein a first inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects comprises a content of a respective object of the plurality of objects, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the computing device is configured to receive an object from the solid-state storage device and display the object on a user interface (UI), which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 26 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 26 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to retrieve at least one inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects directly from the metadata storage, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 28 is dependent on claim 22 and includes all the limitations of claim 22. Therefore, claim 28 recites the same abstract idea of efficient storage and retrieval of small objects. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the first inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects comprises a complete content of the respective object of the plurality of objects, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 13-14, 16, 18-20, 25, 27, 29 they have similar limitations as of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 22-23, 26, 28 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 22-23, 26, 28 above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, 22-23, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagam Reddy (Pub. No. : US 20190043540 A1) in the view of Vincent et al. (Patent No. : US 9559889 B1).
As to clam 1 Chagam Reddy teaches a system, comprising:
a solid-state storage device comprising at least one memory comprising a non-volatile metadata storage and a cache (paragraphs [0021], [0028]: storage device 120 may be arranged or configured as a solid-state drive (SSD)wherein object metadata table 202 comprises a data structure to store metadata about storage objects in system 200 and storage object may be stored in one or more locations in system 200, such as in read cache 204, write buffer 206, read buffer 207); and
one or more computer processors coupled to the at least one computer memory (fig. 1 and paragraph [0027]: multiprocessor systems, processor-based systems, or combination thereof);
wherein the at least one memory comprises computer-readable instructions which, when executed (paragraph [0058]: Storage medium may store various types of computer executable instructions), cause the one or more computer processors to:
receive a plurality of objects at the solid-state storage device (paragraphs [0018], [0021], [0028], [0044]: receive a write transaction request to storage memory device(s) 122 at storage device 120 (SSD) to store metadata about storage objects in system 200);
store at least two objects of the plurality of objects in the metadata storage, thereby creating a plurality of inlined objects in the metadata storage (paragraph [0028]: store metadata about storage objects in system 200);
store at least one object of the plurality of objects in the cache based on one or more properties of the at least one object (paragraph [0028]: In embodiments of the present invention, at any given time a storage object may be stored in one or more locations in system 200, write buffer 206);
coalesce a subset of the plurality of objects to create at least one coalesced object (paragraph [0053]: objects stored in write buffer entries in system 200 may be coalesced with objects stored in other write buffer entries and then stored in the SSD as a block), wherein a first coalesced object of the at least one coalesced object is associated with a bulk identifier (paragraphs [0031], [0033]: index 1 ….. index N); and
store the at least one coalesced object in an object store at a network (paragraphs [0066], [0027]: store the coalesced objects in the SSD).
Chagam Reddy does not explicitly disclose but Vincent teaches modify a metadata of a first inlined object of the subset of the plurality of inlined objects to indicate the bulk identifier and a position of the first inlined object within the first coalesced object (column 17 lines 45-57, column 16 lines 14-24, column 4 lines 65-67: inline metadata may be updated based on the reads and writes performed, wherein the cache entry instance identifiers may be stored in the contiguous metadata for a chunk, and also replicated in the inline metadata sections of the data blocks of the chunk, wherein the metadata, which may be used, for example, for identifying the offsets and/or states of various chunks and blocks of a cached volume on a cache disk, wherein the offset or location of the inline metadata section may be determined based on the relative offset of the data block within the chunk). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chagam Reddy by adding above limitation as taught by Vincent to optimize some of the upload and download operations required for supporting cached volumes at the appliance (Vincent, column 9 lines 33-34).
As to clam 2 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches an inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects has a size of about 64 kibibytes (KiB) or less (paragraph [0044]).
As to clam 3 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches wherein the one or more computer processors being configured to cause the system to coalesce the subset of the plurality of inlined objects to create the at least one coalesced inlined object comprises the one or more computer computer processors being configured to combine two or more inlined objects of the plurality of inlined objects into a coalesced object of the at least one coalesced object (paragraph [0053]).
As to clam 5 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches wherein one or more computer processors are further configured to remove content of the subet of the plurality of inlined objects from the metadata storage upon being coalesced (paragraph [0050]).
As to clam 7 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches wherein each object of the plurality of objects is associated with a unique identifier (paragraph [0044]).
As to clam 9 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches wherein the one or more properties comprises: a. a date of access; or b. a size (paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
As to clam 11 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to remove a first object of the at least one object of the one or more objects from the cache based on the one or more properties (paragraph [0050]-[0052]).
As to clam 22 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches wherein a first inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects comprises a content of a respective object of the plurality of objects (paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
As to clam 23 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Chagam Reddy teaches further comprising a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to receive an object from the solid-state storage device and display the object on a user interface (UI) (paragraph [0027]).
As to clam 26 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 1. Vincent teaches wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to retrieve at least one inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects directly from the metadata storage (Column 22 line 62 to column 23 line 43).
As to clam 28 Chagam Reddy together with Vincent teaches a system according to claim 22. Vincent teaches wherein the first inlined object of the plurality of inlined objects comprises a complete content of the respective object of the plurality of objects (Column 4 lines 61 column 5 lines 46).
As to claims 13-14, 16, 18-20, 25, 27, 29 they have similar limitations as of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 22-23, 26, 28 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 22-23, 26, 28 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights