DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 02/12/2026.
Claims 2, 4, 16, 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5 – 15, 17, 19 – 20 are currently pending.
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 – 15, 17, 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 15, 17, 19 – 20 are directed to a method, and an apparatus. therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claims 1, 7, 14 includes the following limitations that directed to an abstract
idea:
“determining a migration task for a first file, wherein data of the first file is stored in a first storage device, and the migration task indicates that the data of the first file need to be migrated from the first storage device to a second storage device, wherein metadata of the first file comprises ownership information of the first file and storage layout information of the first file, the ownership information of the first file indicates that a storage device to which the first file belongs is the first storage device, and the storage layout information of the first file indicates that a storage device storing the first file comprises the first storage device and does not comprise the second storage device”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. A user can mentally judge/evaluation the received task with associated metadata and identify the metadata requirements. This is also consistent with the specification as in Para. 0350 - 0353 of the Disclosure, where one can mentally perform examining the underlying meaning and context (whether the metadata indicate location and ownership information correctly) of an immigration task that need to be performed based on the obtained input from user.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“in response to determining the migration task for the first file, performing a first change on the metadata of the first file, wherein the first change comprises changing the ownership information of the first file stored in the metadata from the identifier of the first storage device to the identifier of the second storage device”, which are insignificant extra solution activities as modifying the received data such as, using a pen and paper to change the ownership information from first storage to second storage. As identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), this does not provide integration into a practical application.
“sending, to a first computing device, a first notification, wherein the first notification indicates that the metadata is changed, to trigger the first computing device migrates the data of the first file from the first storage device to the second storage device based on the ownership information and the storage layout information stored in the metadata after the first change” which are insignificant extra solution activities as transmitting data to other location, without any storage/manipulation of the physical data. This step amounts to merely communicating the result of the data change to initiate further action and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. As identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), this does not provide integration into a practical application.
The method is applied on a computing device includes a storage device, processors, instruction to perform the method, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The additional limitations, individually or in combination, do not integrated the abstract idea
into a practical application, even viewing the claims as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, the action of performing changing metadata identifier, sending notification to alert that metadata had been changed and migrated the file to other storage accordingly, are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II),' "i. 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);
The computing device with storage and processor are considered insignificant extra- solution activity, and do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP -2106.05(g) ("whether the limitation is significant").
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the
judicial exception. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and
therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 8 – 15, 17, 19 - 20, Applicant claims the abstract idea on a computing device with storage and processor to carry-out the method as in claim 1, without adding further limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to "determining… changing metadata identifier, sending notification to alert that metadata had been changed and migrated the file to other storage" do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5 – 15, 17, 19 - 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
The dependent claim 3 includes “the method is performed by a migration scheduling apparatus… the metadata of the target file system is synchronized between a plurality of devices…”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, “synchronized between a plurality of devices” encompasses mental processes practically performed by the human using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The dependent claim 5 includes “obtaining metadata that is of the first file and that is obtained through a second change, wherein the second change is performed by the first computing device or the second computing device, and the second change indicates a change of the storage layout information of the first file; and determining migration progress of the first file based on the metadata that is of the first file and that is obtained through the second change”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, “obtaining metadata… determining migration progress” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, an opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The dependent claim 6 includes “receiving a second notification, wherein the second notification indicates that the metadata of the first file is changed”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, “receiving a second notification” encompasses mental processes practically performed by the human using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The dependent claim 7 includes “wherein the metadata of the target file system is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of metadata records, each metadata record of the plurality of metadata records comprises an identifier of a node and an attribute of the node, the node is a file or a directory, and the attribute of the node comprises ownership information of the node and storage layout information of the node; and the performing a first change on the metadata of the first file comprises: appending a first metadata record to an end of the metadata of the target file system, wherein the first metadata record comprises the identifier of the first file and changed ownership information of the first file, and the changed ownership information of the first file indicates that the storage device to which the first file belongs is the second storage device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, “synchronized between a plurality of devices” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, an opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 – 15, 17, 19 – 20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One is not persuasive.
The claims recite an abstract idea of managing data migration in a distributed storage system, which falls within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Specifically, the claims recite determining a migration task for a file, modifying metadata associate with the file, and initiating migration based on that metadata.
For example, the claims recite “determining a migration task for a first file stored on a first storage device, where the migration task indicates that the file should be migrated to a second storage device, The claims further recite that the metadata of the file includes ownership information and storage layout information describing where the file belongs and where it is stored.
In response to determining the migration task, the claims recite performing a change to the metadata, including updating the ownership information from the first storage device to the second storage device. This step represents modifying information to reflect a new state, which is a form of data manipulation that can be performed mentally or though pen and paper.
Additionally, the claims recite sending a notification to a computing device indicating that the metadata has been changed, thereby triggering the migration of the file. This step amounts to merely communicating the result of the data change to initiate further action and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
Although the Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a specific improvement in distributed storage systems by coordinating migration using discrepancies between ownership information and storage layout information, the claims do not recite a specific technological implementation or improvement to computer functionality. Instead, they merely use generic computing components to perform routine data processing and communication functions.
Accordingly, the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims recite subject matter that is not patent-eligible under 101.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 – 15, 17, 19 – 20, under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 – 15, 17, 19 – 20, under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571- 272- 4024. 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.
CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights