DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION CONCERNING RESPONSES
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 23, 2026, in response to PTO Office Action mailed on April 3, 2026. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results that follow.
In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17-18, and 20 have been amended. As a result, claims 1-20 are now pending in this application.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 23, 2026, in response to PTO Office Action mailed on April 3, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hence, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further review a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Roth et al. (Patent Number US 9,210,178 B1).
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,652 B2 in view of Roth et al. (Patent Number US 9,210,178 B1).
Underlined portions are directed towards limitations that Roth et al. addresses.
Instant Application 18/970,070
U.S. Patent No. 12,169,652 B2
Claim 1
A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: receiving, from a requestor, an access request for metadata associated with a data object, wherein the data object is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, and wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data object;
transmitting the access request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network;
determining, by the metadata manager, metadata associated with the storage network;
mapping, by the metadata manager, a file path and a storage location for accessing each encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices;
and facilitating, by the metadata manager retrieval of the set of encoded data slices.
Claim 1
A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: receiving a storage network access request pertaining to a data object, wherein the data object is segmented into a plurality of data segments, wherein a data segment of the plurality of data segments is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, and wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data segment;
determining whether the storage network access request requires multiple access steps to at least some storage units of the plurality of storage units;
in response to a determination that multiple access steps are required, delegating at least a portion of the multiple access steps to a delegation agent, wherein the delegation agent is associated with a storage unit of the plurality of storage units;
and receiving a multistep object access result.
The corresponding patent document does not disclose the metadata as disclosed in the limitations “transmitting the access request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network,” “determining, by the metadata manager, metadata associated with the storage network,” or “mapping, by the metadata manager, a file path and a storage location for accessing each encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices.”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitation “transmitting the access request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network (Column 3, lines 8-12 and 27-30; FIG. 18 and 23).”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitation “determining, by the metadata manager, metadata associated with the storage network (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitation “mapping, by the metadata manager, a file path and a storage location for accessing each encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of the corresponding patent documents with elements of Roth et al. in order to help administrators to comprehend a large system such as a cloud environment [Column 2, lines 1-9].
Instant Application 18/970,070
U.S. Patent No. 12,169,652 B2
Claim 10
A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: transmitting, to a metadata manager associated with the storage network, an access request for a data object, wherein the data object is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data object, wherein the metadata manager is configured to determine metadata associated with a data object map and is further configured to map a file path and the storage location for the data object;
receiving, from the metadata manager, the file path and storage location for accessing one or more encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices;
and transmitting, based on the file path and the storage location, an access request for an encoded data slice of the one or more encoded data slices.
Claim 1
A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: receiving a storage network access request pertaining to a data object, wherein the data object is segmented into a plurality of data segments, wherein a data segment of the plurality of data segments is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, and wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data segment;
determining whether the storage network access request requires multiple access steps to at least some storage units of the plurality of storage units;
in response to a determination that multiple access steps are required, delegating at least a portion of the multiple access steps to a delegation agent, wherein the delegation agent is associated with a storage unit of the plurality of storage units; and receiving a multistep object access result.
The corresponding patent document does not disclose the metadata as disclosed in the limitations “transmitting, to a metadata manager associated with the storage network, an access request for a data object,” “wherein the metadata manager is configured to determine metadata associated with a data object map and is further configured to map a file path and the storage location for the data object,” and “receiving, from the metadata manager, the file path and storage location for accessing one or more encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices.”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitation “transmitting, to a metadata manager associated with the storage network, an access request for a data object (Column 3, lines 8-12 and 27-30; FIG. 18 and 23).”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitation “receiving, from the metadata manager, the file path and storage location for accessing one or more encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitation “wherein the metadata manager is configured to determine metadata associated with a data object map and is further configured to map a file path and the storage location for the data object (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of the corresponding patent documents with elements of Roth et al. in order to help administrators to comprehend a large system such as a cloud environment [Column 2, lines 1-9].
Instant Application 18/970,070
U.S. Patent No. 12,169,652 B2
Claim 20
A computing device of a group of computing devices of a storage network, the computing device comprises: an interface;
a local memory;
and a processing module operably coupled to the interface and the local memory, wherein the processing module functions to: receive a request for a data object, from a requestor wherein the data object is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data object;
transmitting the request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network, wherein the metadata manager is configured to access one or more metadata stores to locate metadata addressing information for a set of encoded data slices associated with the data object and determine, based on the metadata addressing information, a location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices;
receiving the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices;
and transmitting the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices to the requestor.
Claim 11
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by one or more processing modules of a computing device of a storage network, causes the computing device to: determine whether a storage network access request requires multiple access steps to a sub-set of storage units of a plurality of storage units;
in response to a determination that multiple access steps are required, delegate at least a portion of the multiple access steps to a delegation agent, wherein the delegation agent is associated with a storage unit of the plurality of storage units;
and receive a multistep object access result.
Claim 1
A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: receiving a storage network access request pertaining to a data object, wherein the data object is segmented into a plurality of data segments, wherein a data segment of the plurality of data segments is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, and wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data segment;
determining whether the storage network access request requires multiple access steps to at least some storage units of the plurality of storage units;
in response to a determination that multiple access steps are required, delegating at least a portion of the multiple access steps to a delegation agent, wherein the delegation agent is associated with a storage unit of the plurality of storage units;
and receiving a multistep object access result.
The corresponding patent document does not disclose the metadata as disclosed in the limitations “transmitting the request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network, wherein the metadata manager is configured to access one or more metadata stores to locate metadata addressing information for a set of encoded data slices associated with the data object and determine, based on the metadata addressing information, a location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices” and “receiving the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices.”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitations “transmitting the request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network (Column 3, lines 8-12 and 27-30; FIG. 18 and 23), wherein the metadata manager is configured to access one or more metadata stores to locate metadata addressing information for a set of encoded data slices associated with the data object and determine, based on the metadata addressing information, a location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
Roth et al. discloses the metadata as disclosed in the limitations “receiving the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of the corresponding patent documents with elements of Roth et al. in order to help administrators to comprehend a large system such as a cloud environment [Column 2, lines 1-9].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Motwani et al. (Publication Number US 2011/0225386 A1) in view of Roth et al. (Patent Number US 9,210,178 B1).
As per claim 1, Motwani et al. discloses “A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network (dispersed storage network; Abstract, lines 1-2), the method comprises: receiving, from a requestor, an access request for a data object, wherein the data object is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices (error coding dispersal storage function; Paragraph 0044), wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units (Paragraph 0044), and wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data object (Paragraphs 0034 and 0064).”
However, while Motwani et al. discloses metadata [Paragraph 0139], Motwani et al. does not disclose “transmitting the access request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network,” “determining, by the metadata manager, metadata associated with the storage network,” “mapping, by the metadata manager, a file path and a storage location for accessing each encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices,” and “and facilitating, by the metadata manager, retrieval of the set of encoded data slices.”
Roth et al. discloses “transmitting the access request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network (Column 3, lines 8-12 and 27-30; FIG. 18 and 23).” Roth et al. discloses “determining, by the metadata manager, metadata associated with the storage network (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).” Roth et al. discloses “mapping, by the metadata manager, a file path and a storage location for accessing each encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).” Roth et al. discloses “and facilitating, by the metadata manager, retrieval of the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of the corresponding patent documents with elements of Roth et al. in order to help administrators to comprehend a large system such as a cloud environment [Column 2, lines 1-9].
As per claims 2 and 11, Roth et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the metadata includes at least one of a current storage size, one or more access permissions, and a directory path for the data object (see authorization information and environment variable values; Column 26, lines 12-20).”
As per claims 3 and 12, Roth et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the metadata includes a storage generation identifier associated with the data object (identifiers and pointers; Column 26, lines 29-33).”
As per claims 4 and 13, Roth et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein metadata is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of metadata addressing slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
Motwani et al. discloses decode threshold as disclosed in the limitation “and wherein a decode threshold number of metadata addressing slices are needed to recover the metadata (Paragraphs 0034 and 0064).”
As per claims 5 and 14, Motwani et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the determining, by the metadata manager (Roth et al. discloses the metadata manager in [Paragraph 0085]), metadata includes retrieving at least a decode threshold number of metadata addressing slices and transmitting the metadata read requests to a plurality of storage units, including the one or more one or more storage units (Paragraphs 0034 and 0064).”
As per claims 6 and 15, Motwani et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein at least one of the one or more storage units comprises cache memory designated for storing metadata (Paragraph 0072-0073).”
As per claims 7 and 16, Motwani et al. discloses “The method of claim 6 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the cache memory is on a same device as the one or more processing modules (Paragraphs 0072-0073).”
As per claims 8 and 18, Roth et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the metadata manager is configured to execute a deterministic function (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
As per claims 9 and 19, Roth et al. discloses “The method of claim 1 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the metadata includes metadata addressing information (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
As per claim 10, Motwani et al. discloses “A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: transmitting, to [a metadata manager] associated with the storage network, an access request for a data object, wherein the data object is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices (error coding dispersal storage function; Paragraph 0044), wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units, wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data object (Paragraphs 0034 and 0064).”
However, while Motwani et al. discloses metadata [Paragraph 0139], Motwani et al. does not disclose “wherein the metadata manager is configured to determine metadata associated with a data object map and is further configured to map a file path and the storage location for the data object,” “receiving, from the metadata manager, the file path and storage location for accessing one or more encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices,” and “and transmitting, based on the file path and the storage location, an access request for an encoded data slice of the one or more encoded data slices.”
Roth et al. discloses “the metadata manager (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
Roth et al. discloses “wherein the metadata manager is configured to determine metadata associated with a data object map and is further configured to map a file path and the storage location for the data object (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).” Roth et al. discloses “receiving, from the metadata manager, the file path and storage location for accessing one or more encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).” Roth et al. discloses “and transmitting, based on the file path and the storage location, an access request for an encoded data slice of the one or more encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of the corresponding patent documents with elements of Roth et al. in order to help administrators to comprehend a large system such as a cloud environment [Column 2, lines 1-9].
As per claim 17, Roth et al. discloses “The method of claim 10 (as disclosed by Motwani et al. and Roth et al. above), wherein the metadata manager is a module designated by the storage unit to manage metadata (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).”
As per claim 20, Motwani et al. discloses “A computing device of a group of computing devices of a storage network, the computing device comprises: an interface (various interfaces such as DSN interface 32 and interface 30; FIG. 1).” Motwani et al. discloses “a local memory (main memory 54; FIG. 2).” Motwani et al. discloses “and a processing module operably coupled to the interface and the local memory, wherein the processing module functions to: receive a request for a data object, from a requestor wherein the data object is dispersed error encoded in accordance with dispersed storage error encoding parameters to produce a set of encoded data slices (error coding dispersal storage function; Paragraph 0044), wherein the set of encoded data slices are distributedly stored among a plurality of storage units (Paragraph 0044), wherein a decode threshold number of encoded data slices are needed to recover the data object (Paragraphs 0034 and 0064).”
However, while Motwani et al. discloses metadata [Paragraph 0139], Motwani et al. does not disclose “transmitting the request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network, wherein the metadata manager is configured to access one or more metadata stores to locate metadata addressing information for a set of encoded data slices associated with the data object and determine, based on the metadata addressing information, a location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices,” “receiving the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices,” and “and transmitting the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices to the requestor.”
Roth et al. discloses “transmitting the request to a metadata manager associated with the storage network (Column 3, lines 8-12 and 27-30; FIG. 18 and 23), wherein the metadata manager is configured to access one or more metadata stores to locate metadata addressing information for a set of encoded data slices associated with the data object and determine, based on the metadata addressing information, a location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).” Roth et al. discloses “receiving the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 25, lines 48-56).” Roth et al. discloses “and transmitting the location and a directory path for the set of encoded data slices to the requestor (Column 4, lines 6-40; Column 26, lines 1-5).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of the corresponding patent documents with elements of Roth et al. in order to help administrators to comprehend a large system such as a cloud environment [Column 2, lines 1-9].
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The following references teach data transfer as they pertain to metadata controllers/managers:
U.S. PATENT NUMBERS:
2007/0226535 A1 – [Paragraph 0061]
2015/0301759 A1 – [Claim 9]
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Conclusions
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Yu whose telephone number is (571)272-9779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, IDRISS ALROBAYE can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/H.W.Y/Examiner, Art Unit 2181 August 14, 2026
/Farley Abad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights