DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted on February 24, 2026 for Continuation Application # 18/979,101 filed on December 12, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210686298.0, filed on 06/16/2022 and Application No. CN202211058557.1, filed on 08/30/2022.
.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and also claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 4-13 and 19-20 are amended.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—Claims 1-20 recite a method, computer program product and apparatus respectively.
The analysis of claims 1 and 20 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 1 and 20 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device, a first metadata stream of a first file system, wherein the first file system runs on the second computing device, the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node, and an attribute of the node, and the node is a file or a directory;
generating, by the first computing device, a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream; and
constructing, by the first computing device, a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device, a first metadata stream of a first file system, wherein the first file system runs on the second computing device, the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node, and an attribute of the node, and the node is a file or a directory;
generating, by the first computing device, a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream; and
constructing, by the first computing device, a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 1 and 20 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 2 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 2 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “the attribute of the node comprises at least one of the following fields: a change operation performed on the node, an identifier of a transaction related to the node, a sequence number of the record, storage layout information of the node, or an extended attribute of the node” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “the attribute of the node comprises at least one of the following fields: a change operation performed on the node, an identifier of a transaction related to the node, a sequence number of the record, storage layout information of the node, or an extended attribute of the node” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 2 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 13 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 3 and 13 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “constructing a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “constructing a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 3 and 13 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claims 4 and 15 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 4 and 15 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “when a newly added record appears at an end of the first metadata stream to form an updated first metadata stream, updating the first file view based on the updated first metadata stream, wherein the updated first file view comprises an updated hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “when a newly added record appears at an end of the first metadata stream to form an updated first metadata stream, updating the first file view based on the updated first metadata stream, wherein the updated first file view comprises an updated hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 4 and 15 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 5 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 5 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “wherein data of the first file system is stored in a first storage disk, the first metadata stream is from a second computing device, and the second computing device is connected to the first storage disk” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “wherein data of the first file system is stored in a first storage disk, the first metadata stream is from a second computing device, and the second computing device is connected to the first storage disk” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 5 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 6 and 14 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 6 and 14 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “obtaining a first input/output (I/O) request, wherein the first I/O request indicates to perform a change operation on a first node; and appending a first record to an end of the first metadata stream, wherein the first record comprises an identifier of the first node, an identifier of a parent node of the first node, and a first attribute of the first node, and the first attribute comprises a type of the change operation” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “obtaining a first input/output (I/O) request, wherein the first I/O request indicates to perform a change operation on a first node; and appending a first record to an end of the first metadata stream, wherein the first record comprises an identifier of the first node, an identifier of a parent node of the first node, and a first attribute of the first node, and the first attribute comprises a type of the change operation” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 6 and 14 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 7 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 7 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “sending a message to the second computing device, wherein the message indicates that the first metadata stream is changed, and wherein the second computing device is indicated to perform the change operation on the first node based on the first record in the first metadata stream” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “sending a message to the second computing device, wherein the message indicates that the first metadata stream is changed, and wherein the second computing device is indicated to perform the change operation on the first node based on the first record in the first metadata stream” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 7 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 8 and 16 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 8 and 16 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “the first metadata stream comprises a third record, the third record comprises an attribute of a second node in the first file system, and the second node is a file; the attribute of the second node comprises storage layout information of the second node, and the storage layout information of the second node indicates a storage device to which the first storage disk belongs; and the method further comprises: obtaining a second I/O request, wherein the second I/O request indicates to read the second node; and obtaining data of the second node from the storage device to which the first storage disk belongs” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “the first metadata stream comprises a third record, the third record comprises an attribute of a second node in the first file system, and the second node is a file; the attribute of the second node comprises storage layout information of the second node, and the storage layout information of the second node indicates a storage device to which the first storage disk belongs; and the method further comprises: obtaining a second I/O request, wherein the second I/O request indicates to read the second node; and obtaining data of the second node from the storage device to which the first storage disk belongs” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 8 and 16 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 9 and 17 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 9 and 17 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “performing a merging operation on the first metadata stream, wherein the merging operation indicates to merge, into one record, a plurality of records corresponding to a same node in the first metadata stream” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “performing a merging operation on the first metadata stream, wherein the merging operation indicates to merge, into one record, a plurality of records corresponding to a same node in the first metadata stream” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 9 and 17 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 10 and 18 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 10 and 18 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “obtaining a second metadata stream of a second file system, wherein data of the second file system is stored in a second storage disk, the second metadata stream is from the second computing device connected to the second storage disk, or is from a third computing device connected to the second storage disk, and the second computing device is different from the third computing device, wherein: the second metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each of the plurality of records of the second metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the second file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the second file system, and an attribute of the node in the second file system; and constructing a second file view, wherein the second file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system and a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the second file system, and the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the second file system is obtained based on the second metadata stream” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “obtaining a second metadata stream of a second file system, wherein data of the second file system is stored in a second storage disk, the second metadata stream is from the second computing device connected to the second storage disk, or is from a third computing device connected to the second storage disk, and the second computing device is different from the third computing device, wherein: the second metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each of the plurality of records of the second metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the second file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the second file system, and an attribute of the node in the second file system; and constructing a second file view, wherein the second file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system and a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the second file system, and the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the second file system is obtained based on the second metadata stream” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 10 and 18 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 11 and 19 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 11 and 19 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “scanning a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in a third file system, wherein data of the third file system is stored in a third storage disk connected to the first computing device; constructing a third metadata stream based on the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the third file system, wherein the third metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each of the plurality records in the third metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the third file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the third file system, and an attribute of the node in the third file system; and sending the third metadata stream to the second computing device, wherein the second computing device is indicated to determine the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the third file system based on the third metadata stream” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “scanning a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in a third file system, wherein data of the third file system is stored in a third storage disk connected to the first computing device; constructing a third metadata stream based on the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the third file system, wherein the third metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each of the plurality records in the third metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the third file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the third file system, and an attribute of the node in the third file system; and sending the third metadata stream to the second computing device, wherein the second computing device is indicated to determine the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the third file system based on the third metadata stream” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 11 and 19 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 12 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 12 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “A metadata sharing system, wherein: the metadata sharing system comprises a first computing device and a second computing device; the second computing device is configured to: scan a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in a first file system, wherein data of the first file system is stored in a first storage disk, and the second computing device is connected to the first storage disk; construct a first metadata stream based on the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, wherein the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each record of the plurality of records in the first metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the first file system, and an attribute of the node in the first file system; and send the first data stream to the first computing device; and the first computing device is configured to: obtain the first data stream from the second computing device; and determine the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “A metadata sharing system, wherein: the metadata sharing system comprises a first computing device and a second computing device; the second computing device is configured to: scan a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in a first file system, wherein data of the first file system is stored in a first storage disk, and the second computing device is connected to the first storage disk; construct a first metadata stream based on the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, wherein the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each record of the plurality of records in the first metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the first file system, and an attribute of the node in the first file system; and send the first data stream to the first computing device; and the first computing device is configured to: obtain the first data stream from the second computing device; and determine the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 12 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claim 21 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claim 21 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “wherein a third file system runs on the first computing device, and the third file system and the first file system are heterogeneous file system” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of determining the hierarchy of a plurality of nodes from the first metadata stream that need to be applied for hierarchy of plurality of nodes (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer device”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “wherein a third file system runs on the first computing device, and the third file system and the first file system are heterogeneous file system” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., obtaining a metadata stream); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “determining a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., metadata stream of a file system) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of obtaining a metadata stream of a file system is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claim 21 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhar et al. US 2016/0210308 A1 (hereinafter ‘Shekhar’) (IDS Submitted on 7/30/2025) in view of French et al. US 2008/0065698 A1 (hereinafter ‘French’) as applied, and further in view of Mark W. Bradley US 2002/0065810 A1 (hereinafter ‘Bradley’).
As per claim 1, Shekhar disclose, A data processing method (Shekhar: paragraph 0031: disclose processing file system entities), applied to a first computing device (Shekhar: paragraph 0057: disclose general purpose computer), wherein the method comprises:
a first metadata stream of a first file system (Shekhar: paragraph 0023: disclose a stream of file system entities. Examiner concedes that the stream is not of metadata of a file system and examiner would discuss this limitation in secondary art below), wherein the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records (Shekhar: paragraph 0051: disclose stream of data items from a file system, which examiner equates data items to plurality of records), each of the plurality of records comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system (Shekhar: paragraph 0016: disclose inode object is an object that corresponds to an inode file system entity), an identifier of a parent node of the node (Shekhar: paragraph 0030: disclose parent directory to the directory inode number), and an attribute of the node (Shekhar: paragraph 0031: disclose generates a set of inode file objects 132 that contain the file/directory attribute metadata information contained by the corresponding inodes), and the node is a file or a directory (Shekhar: paragraph 0030: disclose children file system entities (directories and files) to their respective inode numbers);
a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream (Shekhar: paragraph 0029: disclose inodes may include file/directory attributes such as type (file or directory), size, creation time, modification time, and access control information, etc. As part of or in addition to the metadata, inodes for directories and files include reference information in the form of block pointers to data blocks that contain the respective directory/file data content and paragraph 0025: disclose file system image includes data structures, referred to herein as file system entities, of a hierarchical file system).
It is noted, however, Shekhar did not specifically detail the aspects of
first metadata stream of a first file system as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, French achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
first metadata stream of a first file system (French: Paragraph 0007: disclose metadata stream about a file and paragraph 0039: disclose stream as a set of data that comprise various parameters ‘metadata’ associated with the file)
The motivation for doing so would have been to solve problem of uneven implementation of file system features is apparent when a data processing system hosts multiple file systems. Multiple files systems may exist on data processing systems that coexist on a common network. A program operating on files of a first file system may have difficulty accessing all features of the files in a second file system (French: Paragraph 0009).
It is noted, however, neither Shekhar nor French specifically detail the aspects of
receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device,
the first file system runs on the second computing device,
generating, by the first computing device, and
constructing, by the first computing device, a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Bradley achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
receiving (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose receives the I/O request from the consumer node and then determines file system type of the consumer node to be a first file system), by a first computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0115 and Fig. 7 Element 602a: disclose a consumer node, which is a personal computer and examiner equates the computer to first computing device) and from a second computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0115 and Fig. 7 Element 602b: disclose a consumer node, which is a personal computer and examiner equates the computer to second computing device),
the first file system runs on the second computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose determines file system type of the consumer node ‘second computing device’ to be a first file system),
generating, by the first computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose consumer node ‘first computing device’ generating a request to communicate with a desired I/O node that is connected to a nexus so as to perform discovery and enumeration of the desired I/O node), and
constructing, by the first computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose second file system is reformatted ‘constructing’ at the I/O node so as to substantially match a metadata format of the first file system), a first file view (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose loaded by the consumer node ‘file view’), wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system (Bradley: paragraph 0036: disclose directly access the directory and file type objects without traversing a hierarchical structure), so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose reformatted metadata enables transparent translation ‘browse or access’ to and from the first file system and the second file system).
The motivation for doing so would have been for a file system that can efficiently grant access to heterogeneous platforms running different operating systems and associated file systems (Bradley: paragraph 0010).
Shekhar, Bradley and French are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Replication Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Shekhar, Bradley and French because they are both directed to replication systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of French and Bradley with the method described by Shekhar in order to solve the problem posed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine French and Bradley with Shekhar to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, the attribute of the node comprises at least one of the following fields: a change operation performed on the node, an identifier of a transaction related to the node, a sequence number of the record, storage layout information of the node, or an extended attribute of the node (Shekhar: paragraph 0048: disclose attribute metadata (i.e., metadata except for block pointers) for file3 that was added in the VOL-A.sub.PTI.sub._.sub.1 PTI is represented by new inode, which examiner equates to identifier of a transaction related to the node).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, when a newly added record appears at an end of the first metadata stream to form an updated first metadata stream, updating the first file view based on the updated first metadata stream, wherein the updated first file view comprises an updated hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system (Shekhar: paragraph 0023: disclose stream includes inodes and corresponding indexed file system entities (e.g., files and directories) that have been added or modified since a previous PTI replication).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, wherein data of the first file system is stored in a first storage disk, the first metadata stream is from a second computing device, and the second computing device is connected to the first storage disk (Shekhar: paragraph 0031: disclose primary storage ‘first storage’ system further comprises a replication engine for processing file system entities received from file system storage such as during data backup to a secondary storage system).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a first input/output (I/O) request, wherein the first I/O request indicates to perform a change operation on a first node; and appending a first record to an end of the first metadata stream, wherein the first record comprises an identifier of the first node, an identifier of a parent node of the first node, and a first attribute of the first node, and the first attribute comprises a type of the change operation (Shekhar: paragraph 0050: disclose the changes to data blocks, reflected in DBNs, object container further includes a data reference object and a data content object).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 above.
It is noted, however, Shekhar did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the method further comprises: sending a message to the second computing device, wherein the message indicates that the first metadata stream is changed, and wherein the second computing device is indicated to perform the change operation on the first node based on the first record in the first metadata stream as recited in claim 7.
On the other hand, French achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the method further comprises: sending a message to the second computing device, wherein the message indicates that the first metadata stream is changed, and wherein the second computing device is indicated to perform the change operation on the first node based on the first record in the first metadata stream (French: Paragraph 0097: disclose creates a delete event, the serving file system relays the message to the stream aware application when the serving file system deletes the primary file).
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, the first metadata stream comprises a third record, the third record comprises an attribute of a second node in the first file system, and the second node is a file; the attribute of the second node comprises storage layout information of the second node, and the storage layout information of the second node indicates a storage device to which the first storage disk belongs; and the method further comprises: obtaining a second I/O request, wherein the second I/O request indicates to read the second node; and obtaining data of the second node from the storage device to which the first storage disk belongs (Shekhar: paragraph 0044: disclose replication are generated by a replication engine using a data layout that preserves the storage management operations (e.g., storage snapshot and deduplication) that are available in the file system and with block level storage. Examiner argues that this limitation is algorithmic logic of capturing the layout on to the destination storage).
As per claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, performing a merging operation on the first metadata stream, wherein the merging operation indicates to merge, into one record, a plurality of records corresponding to a same node in the first metadata stream (Shekhar: paragraph 0043: disclose changes ‘merge’ to the file system further include modification of FBN 0 of file2 so that the data content of file2 FBN 0 matches the data content of FBN 3 of file1 which points to DBN within the file1 inode).
As per claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, obtaining a second metadata stream of a second file system, wherein data of the second file system is stored in a second storage disk, the second metadata stream is from the second computing device connected to the second storage disk, or is from a third computing device connected to the second storage disk, and the second computing device is different from the third computing device, wherein: the second metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each of the plurality of records of the second metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the second file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the second file system, and an attribute of the node in the second file system; and constructing a second file view, wherein the second file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system and a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the second file system, and the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the second file system is obtained based on the second metadata stream (Shekhar: paragraph 0046: disclose replication stream of file system entities includes inodes as well as indexed file systems entities such as files and directories. Specifically, file system entities include the modified data blocks for file1 and file2 that have been written to new locations having DBNs. The replication stream also includes the new data block at DBN that contains the data content of new file3. File system entities further includes file inodes. Examiner argues that this limitation is algorithmic logic of capturing the stream into multiple file systems).
As per claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Shekhar disclose, scanning a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in a third file system, wherein data of the third file system is stored in a third storage disk connected to the first computing device; constructing a third metadata stream based on the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the third file system, wherein the third metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each of the plurality records in the third metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the third file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the third file system, and an attribute of the node in the third file system; and sending the third metadata stream to the second computing device, wherein the second computing device is indicated to determine the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the third file system based on the third metadata stream (Shekhar: paragraph 0046: disclose replication stream of file system entities includes inodes as well as indexed file systems entities such as files and directories. Specifically, file system entities include the modified data blocks for file1 and file2 that have been written to new locations having DBNs. The replication stream also includes the new data block at DBN that contains the data content of new file3. File system entities further includes file inodes. Examiner argues that this limitation is algorithmic logic of capturing the stream into multiple file systems).
As per claim 12, Shekhar disclose, A metadata sharing system, wherein:
the metadata sharing system comprises a first computing device and a second computing device (Shekhar: Figure 2, and Paragraph 0047: disclose file server 202 communicates with a replication engine 215 to perform full (baseline) or incremental (difference between PTIs) replications of the file system into OBS objects stored within cloud system 230 via OBS server 232, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the "OBS SERVER 232" and the second computing device corresponds to the "replication engine 215"));
the second computing device is configured to: scan a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in a first file system, wherein data of the first file system is stored in a first storage disk, and the second computing device is connected to the first storage disk (Shekhar: Figure 2, and Paragraph 0047: disclose see figure 2, in particular: the hierarchy of nodes in the Storage volume 204 and paragraph 47, in particular the passage: "Parser 208 is configured, using any combination of coded software, firmware, and/or hardware, to selectively identify and interpret each of the file system entities 205 in a given replication stream and to provide the resultant identified entity and sub-entity information to object mapper 210.");
construct a first metadata stream based on the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, wherein the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, and each record of the plurality of records in the first metadata stream comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node in the first file system, and an attribute of the node in the first file system (Shekhar: Figure 2, in particular the data structure 236 and paragraph 0053, in particular the passage: "For example, the parser may further process the replication data stream to identify and designate file system entities as “inode number,” “parent inode number,” “file type,” “PTI,” “absolute path,” and “operation.” In response, an object mapper such as that depicted in FIG. 2 may generate a metadata catalog having per-snapshot entries, and wherein each of the per-snapshot entries includes fields for “inode number,” “parent inode number,” “file type,” “PTI,” “absolute path,” and “operation.”); and
send the first data stream to the first computing device; and the first computing device is configured to: obtain the first data stream from the second computing device; and determine the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream (Shekhar: Figure 1B, paragraph 0038- paragraph 0039 and paragraph 0053, in particular the passage: "The generated metadata catalog can be utilized during data recovery from the secondary system’).
It is noted, however, Shekhar did not specifically detail the aspects of
first metadata stream of a first file system as recited in claim 12.
On the other hand, French achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
first metadata stream of a first file system (French: Paragraph 0007: disclose metadata stream about a file and paragraph 0039: disclose stream as a set of data that comprise various parameters ‘metadata’ associated with the file).
It is noted, however, neither Shekhar nor French specifically detail the aspects of
receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device,
the first file system runs on the second computing device,
generating, by the first computing device, and
constructing, by the first computing device, a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Bradley achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
receiving (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose receives the I/O request from the consumer node and then determines file system type of the consumer node to be a first file system), by a first computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0115 and Fig. 7 Element 602a: disclose a consumer node, which is a personal computer and examiner equates the computer to first computing device) and from a second computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0115 and Fig. 7 Element 602b: disclose a consumer node, which is a personal computer and examiner equates the computer to second computing device),
the first file system runs on the second computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose determines file system type of the consumer node ‘second computing device’ to be a first file system),
generating, by the first computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose consumer node ‘first computing device’ generating a request to communicate with a desired I/O node that is connected to a nexus so as to perform discovery and enumeration of the desired I/O node), and
constructing, by the first computing device (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose second file system is reformatted ‘constructing’ at the I/O node so as to substantially match a metadata format of the first file system), a first file view (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose loaded by the consumer node ‘file view’), wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system (Bradley: paragraph 0036: disclose directly access the directory and file type objects without traversing a hierarchical structure), so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view (Bradley: paragraph 0016: disclose reformatted metadata enables transparent translation ‘browse or access’ to and from the first file system and the second file system).
As per claim 13, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 13 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 14, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 14 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 15, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 15 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 16, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 16 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
As per claim 17, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 9. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 17 limitations under the same rationale as claim 9.
As per claim 18, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 10. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 18 limitations under the same rationale as claim 10.
As per claim 19, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 11. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 19 limitations under the same rationale as claim 11.
As per claim 20, Shekhar disclose, A computing device, comprising: a storage medium configured to store program instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the storage medium, wherein the program instructions (Shekhar: paragraph 0058: disclose instructions stored in one or more machine-readable media), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising (Shekhar: Fig. 5: disclose a computing device with processor, memory): remaining limitations in this claim 20 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 21, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, neither Shekhar nor French specifically detail the aspects of
wherein a third file system runs on the first computing device, and the third file system and the first file system are heterogeneous file system as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Bradley achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein a third file system runs on the first computing device, and the third file system (Bradley: Fig. 7 Element 602c: disclose consumer node, which examiner equated to third file system) and the first file system are heterogeneous file system (Bradley: paragraph 0013: disclose translation system for translating between nodes having heterogeneous file systems).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 24, 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device, a first metadata stream of a first file system, wherein the first file system runs on the second computing device, the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node, and an attribute of the node, and the node is a file or a directory;
generating, by the first computing device, a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream; and
constructing, by the first computing device, a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as viewing file system across multiple computing devices, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are directed to an abstract recited in the form of a generalized invention which can be performed in a human mind with a pencil and paper. The particular claimed elements which constitute the abstract idea include
receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device, a first metadata stream of a first file system, wherein the first file system runs on the second computing device, the first metadata stream is a streaming structure and comprises a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records comprises an identifier of a node in the first file system, an identifier of a parent node of the node, and an attribute of the node, and the node is a file or a directory;
generating, by the first computing device, a hierarchy of a plurality of nodes in the first file system based on the first metadata stream; and
constructing, by the first computing device, a first file view, wherein the first file view comprises the hierarchy of the plurality of nodes in the first file system, so that a user can browse or access the first file system on the second computing device from the first computing device through the first file view.
Constructing a file view which can be browse or access by multiple computing devices, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams. The concept described in claims 1-2 and 4-21 does not meaningfully differ from those found by the courts to constitute mathematical algorithms.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method; constructing file view that can be browse or access by multiple heterogeneous computing devices, can also be interpreted as algorithmic logic. These limitations are directed to realizing the mathematical algorithm in a computer system. Executing the using a model to view file system is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the compression policy is at most insignificant post solution activity of browse or access by multiple computing devices. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable medium" and a "computer" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. 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. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing a result and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of business rules of constructing file system view, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of constructing file system view for multiple heterogenous multiple computing devices, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant's arguments filed on February 24, 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of new reference.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2005/0114289 A1 disclose “Readahead operations performing method for storage operating system, involves receiving client read request at storage system, where request indicates client-requested data for operating system, and performing readahead operations”
US Pat. US 9,626,377 B1 disclose “Cluster file system with metadata server for controlling movement of data between storage tiers”
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 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 PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights