DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 6/11/2026.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-20 have been amended. No claims are new. No claims have been cancelled. Thus claims 1-20 have been examined.
The IDS sent 4/20/2026 have been examined.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, 11 examiner is unable to find support for “determining whether first data to be stored contains either mutable data that can be modified or immutable data that cannot be modified; in response to determining that the first data contains only mutable data… in response to determining that the first data contains only immutable data”. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Regarding claims 4-7, 15-17 examiner is unable to find support for “wherein the first data contains only immutable data”. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Regarding claim 8-9, 14, 18-20 examiner is unable to find support for “wherein the first data contains only mutable data”. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Reasons for Not Applying Art
Regarding claim 1, 11, and 20, while the claim stands rejected s being indefinite under 112 (a), no prior art is applied herein below. An updated search failed to identify prior art that teaches “determining whether first data to be stored contains either mutable data that can be modified or immutable data that cannot be modified; in response to determining that the first data contains only mutable data… in response to determining that the first data contains only immutable data”.
Examiner further notes that examiner performed a search for:
Receive a write request
Is data in the write request mutable?
If yes, write data to datastore
If no, write data to datastore and cache
Examiner is unable to find prior art for receiving a write request, and writing the write data to a cache only if the data in the write request is immutable. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to be consistent with of Fig. 5 of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M. GIROUARD whose telephone number is (469)295-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 7:30.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/JANICE M. GIROUARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights