DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This communication is in response to the amendment/arguments filed on November 10, 2025 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, this rejection is made final. Claims 2-21 are pending for examination. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Examiner Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 that “Monitoring a storage capacity is not the same as monitoring a user device activity count since a most recent aggregated log file transmission, as in claim 2”, is acknowledged but not deemed to be persuasive.
Agrawal [0090] discloses “the data agent 236 may be configured to evaluate an application 108, and based on certain system management parameters and/or other considerations associated with the application 108 (e.g., data size, frequency of replication, system or user preferences, etc.), the data agent 236 may "map" or correlate the application data to one or more locations on the destination storage device 116”. Agrawal [0133] discloses “the application 108 is periodically quiesced (and a corresponding consistency point placed in the source log 244) based on particular criteria. For instance, the quiescing of the application 108 may be based on one or more system- or user-defined preferences (e.g., every five minutes). The periodic quiescing of the application 108 may be based on the desired frequency of performing replication, backup or other data modification operations on the subject data”. Agrawal [00273-0275] discloses “FIG. 14A illustrates a user interface portion 1400 having an interface 1402 associated with a client computer 1410. In certain embodiments, the interface 1402 comprises a graphical user interface … the interface 1402 provides the user with an option of specifying one or more policies that apply to each of the applications 1408. For instance, the user may be capable of determining which of the applications 1408 is to be monitored and/or how frequently data associated with a particular application is to be copied”. Therefore, Agrawal teaches the above argued limitation of claim 2
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of patent 12,210,479 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,068,436. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the table below:
Instant Application 18/981,021
Patent No. 12,210,479
Patent No. 11,068,436
2. (New) A method of maintaining a storage server comprising:
receiving, by a file service module of a storage server, log files from a plurality of client devices that are in communication with the storage server over a communications network, wherein the log files from the plurality of client devices comprise records of user activities associated with respective client devices;
aggregating, by the file service module, the log files of respective client devices to produce aggregated log files;
Compressing at least a portion of the aggregated log files;
for a respective aggregated log file, monitoring a user device activity count since a most recent aggregated log file transmission;
transmitting, by the file service module to a log file server, the respective aggregated log file, the transmission of the respective aggregated log file to the log file server triggered based on the monitoring of the user device activity count, wherein each of the aggregated log files are associated with a subscription for storage on the storage server; and
responsive to determining that an aggregated log file stored on the log file server is associated with an expired subscription, removing the aggregated log file from the log file server.
5. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of conditions include one or more of:
an elapsed time since a most recent respective aggregated log file transmission reaching a time threshold value;
user device activity count indicates a number of user activities associated with a respective client device; and
a size of the respective aggregated log file reaching a file size quota.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a file service module of a storage server, log files from a client device that is in communication with the storage server over a communications network, wherein the log files comprise records of user activities associated with the client device;
aggregating, by the file service module, the log files to produce an aggregated log file;
monitoring a plurality of conditions, the plurality of conditions including:
transmitting, by the file service module to a log file server, the aggregated log file, the transmission of the aggregated log file to the log file server triggered based on the monitoring of the plurality of conditions.
the elapsed time since a most recent aggregated log file transmission reaching a time threshold value;
a user device activity count since the most recent aggregated log file transmission reaching an activity threshold value, the user device activity count indicating a number of user activities associated with the client device; and
the size of the aggregated log file reaching a file size quota;
A method comprising:
receiving, by a file service module of a storage server, log files from a client device that is in communication with the storage server over a communications network, wherein the log files comprise records of activities associated with the client device;
aggregating, by the file service module, the log files to produce an aggregated log file, wherein the aggregated log file includes compressed log files and uncompressed log files, and wherein the uncompressed log files are more recent log files than the compressed log files; and
transmitting, by the file service module to a log file server, the aggregated log file responsive to a size of the aggregated log file being equal to at least a set size limit, wherein the set size limit for the aggregated log file is dynamically modified to control a frequency of the transmitting of the aggregated log file to the log file server to obtain a desired performance target.
Table 1
As exemplarily illustrated in Table 1 above, both are directed to managing user log files that are sent to data backup sites; see claim language for detail. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of patent 12,210,479 and claims 1-17 of patent 11,068,436 to arrive at the claims 2-21 of the instant application 18/981021 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. It has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson (CCPA), 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Please also see MPEP § 804.
Claims 8, 11, 14 and 17 of the instant application are substantially encompass the method recited in claims 2 and 5 and are also being rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 12,210,479 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,068,436.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0144283 A1, ‘Clark’, hereafter) in view of Agrawal (U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0186068 A1) in view of KOIZUMI EIICHI (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2011134011A, published 2011-07-07, ‘KOIZUMI’, hereafter) and further in view of Crandall (US Patent No. 5,999,949, ‘Crandall’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 2. Clark teaches a method of maintaining a storage server comprising:
receiving, by a file service module of a storage server, log files from a plurality of client devices that are in communication with the storage server over a communications network, wherein the log files from the plurality of client devices comprise records of user activities associated with respective client devices (The client can include a file usage aggregator module (i.e., File Service Module and file usage aggregator module can reside in a server, Clark [0032]). The file usage aggregator module can be integrated in operating system. File usage aggregator module can receive local usage data indicating the history and usage of local files stored on local storage and accessed by client (i.e., receiving log files associated with the client), Clark [0017]. File usage aggregator module can also communicate with the set of hosts, Clark [0018]);
aggregating, by the file service module, the log files of respective client devices to produce aggregated log files (Clark [0017] and [0022] and [0032] discloses combining files related to the user activities associated with the client device);
Clark does not teach
Compressing at least a portion of the aggregated log files;
However, Crandall teaches
Compressing at least a portion of the aggregated log files; (Crandall, Col 15, lines 59-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made having the teachings of Clark and Crandall before him/her, to modify Clark with the teaching of Crandall’s text file compression system utilizing word terminators. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of being able to search stored compressed documents.
Clark and Crandall do not teach
for a respective aggregated log file, monitoring a user device activity count since a most recent aggregated log file transmission; transmitting, by the file service module to a log file server, the respective aggregated log file, the transmission of the respective aggregated log file to the log file server triggered based on the monitoring of the user device activity count, wherein each of the aggregated log files are associated with a subscription for storage on the storage server;
However, Agrawal teaches
for a respective aggregated log file, monitoring a user device activity count since a most recent aggregated log file transmission; transmitting, by the file service module to a log file server, the respective aggregated log file, the transmission of the respective aggregated log file to the log file server triggered based on the monitoring of the user device activity count, wherein each of the aggregated log files are associated with a subscription for storage on the storage server (when one or more of the source logs reach a particular memory threshold (i.e., reaching the size), the data agent may open a socket and communicate to the destination system that a copy of the source log is ready to be transmitted to the destination system (i.e., transmitting the file to the destination), Agrawal [0102] and Figs. 3-4. Also see [0120] & [0136]. Please also [0040-0044]. Agrawal discloses user device activity count “the data agent 236 may be configured to evaluate an application 108, and based on certain system management parameters and/or other considerations associated with the application 108 (e.g., data size, frequency of replication, system or user preferences, etc.), the data agent 236 may "map" or correlate the application data to one or more locations on the destination storage device 116”, Agrawal [0090]. “… the application 108 is periodically quiesced (and a corresponding consistency point placed in the source log 244) based on particular criteria. For instance, the quiescing of the application 108 may be based on one or more system- or user-defined preferences (e.g., every five minutes). The periodic quiescing of the application 108 may be based on the desired frequency of performing replication, backup or other data modification operations on the subject data”, Agrawal [0133]. “FIG. 14A illustrates a user interface portion 1400 having an interface 1402 associated with a client computer 1410. In certain embodiments, the interface 1402 comprises a graphical user interface. … the interface 1402 provides the user with an option of specifying one or more policies that apply to each of the applications 1408. For instance, the user may be capable of determining which of the applications 1408 is to be monitored and/or how frequently data associated with a particular application is to be copied” (i.e., monitoring a user device activity count), Agrawal [00273-0275]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made having the teachings of Clark, Crandall and Agrawal before him/her, to further modify Clark with the teaching of Agrawal’s network redirector systems and methods for performing data replication. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing the processing load on a source, or primary, system when performing one or more data management and/or storage operations on data (Agrawal [0017]).
Clark, Crandall and Agrawal do not teach
responsive to determining that an aggregated log file stored on the log file server is associated with an expired subscription, removing the aggregated log file from the log file server.
However, KOIZUMI teaches
responsive to determining that an aggregated log file stored on the log file server is associated with an expired subscription, removing the aggregated log file from the log file server (the control unit of the document management support server executes a drag-and-drop operation process to the aggregation folder … the folder editing unit of the control unit records an “aggregation” flag in the document format aggregation data area of the document format that has been aggregated in the document format, KOIZUMI [0114-0116]. The control unit of the document management support server executes a periodic update process of the document format storage folder of the file server. Specifically, the folder monitoring unit of the control unit monitors the storage state of files in each folder and changes the folder configuration as necessary, …, process of deleting the storage expiration file, the storage expiration document file stored in each folder is searched at the timing of the year change, and the document files whose storage expiration has passed are collectively deleted, KOIZUMI [0065-0066]. The control unit of the document management support server executes update processing of the document format individual record. Specifically, the folder monitoring unit of the control unit deletes the “present” flag recorded in the document format aggregation data area of the document format individual record for the created document format name folder, KOIZUMI [0161], [0177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made having the teachings of Clark, Crandall, Agrawal and KOIZUMI before him/her, to further modify Clark with the teaching of KOIZUMI’s device, systems, and/or methods for processing transactions. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing a document management support for supporting management of documents created in common in each department of an organization by a process where document files stored in the file folder is counted, and if the number of document files are smaller than the first threshold, the document file stored in the document format name folder is moved to an aggregation folder, and the document format name folder is deleted (KOIZUMI, Abstract, [0008], [0010]).
Regarding claim 4. Clark as modified teaches, wherein the uncompressed log files are more recent log files than the compressed log files (Crandall, Col 15, lines 59-67, Col 18, lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 5. Clark as modified teaches, further comprises monitoring one or more of:
an elapsed time since a most recent respective aggregated log file transmission reaching a time threshold value; user device activity count indicates a number of user activities associated with a respective client device (KOIZUMI [0065-0066], [0114-0116); and
a size of the respective aggregated log file reaching a file size quota (when one or more of the source logs reach a particular memory threshold (i.e., reaching the size), the data agent may open a socket and communicate to the destination system that a copy of the source log is ready to be transmitted to the destination system (i.e., transmitting the file to the destination), Agrawal [0102] and Figs. 3-4. Also see [0120] & [0136]).
Regarding claim 6. Clark as modified teaches, wherein the aggregating comprises associating the log files with particular ones of the plurality of client devices to produce a particular aggregated log file for each of the plurality of client devices (The client can include a file usage aggregator module. The file usage aggregator module 108 can be integrated in operating system, or in embodiments can be separate from operating system. File usage aggregator module 108 can receive local usage data indicating the history and usage of local files stored on local storage and accessed by client, Clark [0017]).
Regarding claim 8. Clark teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor (File usage aggregator module 108 as shown can be connected to memory 136 of client 102. Memory 136 can comprise electronic memory such as random access memory (RAM), computer-readable medium, Clark [0020]) for:
although claim 8 directed to a product, it is similar in scope to claim 2. The method steps of claim 2 substantially encompass the product recited in claim 8. Therefore; claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 9-12, the method steps of claims 3-6 substantially encompass the product recited in claims 9-12. Therefore, claims 9-12 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 3-6 above.
Regarding claim 14. Clark teaches a storage server, comprising:
a processor; and a memory comprising processor executable code, wherein the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the storage server (The set of hosts 116 can each locally store one or more user files in local databases or networked servers, or other storage, Clark [0015]. The file browser 112 can present the user with options to perform various actions with the files presented in file selector list 128, including to copy or move files between local and remote storage, Clark [0026]) to:
although claim 14 directed to a server, it is similar in scope to claim 2. The method steps of claim 2 substantially encompass the server recited in claim 14. Therefore; claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 15-18, the method steps of claims 3-6 substantially encompass the server recited in claims 15-18. Therefore, claims 15-18 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 3-6 above.
Regarding claim 20. Clark as modified teaches, wherein monitoring the user device activity count further comprising counting a number of user activities associated with a respective client device (Agrawal [0090], [0133], [0273-0275]).
Regarding claim 21. Clark as modified teaches, wherein the user device activity count indicates a number of user activities associated with a respective client device (Agrawal [0090], [0133], [0273-0275]).
Claims 7, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Clark et al. in view of Agrawal in view of KOIZUMI and further in view of Rothbarth et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0021950 A1, ‘Rothbarth’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 7. Clark, Agrawal and KOIZUMI do not teach, wherein the log files received by the file service module comprise encrypted files.
However, Rothbarth teaches wherein the log files received by the file service module comprise encrypted files (allows a user to predefine a schedule for automatically transmitting encrypted copies of files from an originating computer to a selected destination computer for storage, Rothbarth [0008], [0038] and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made having the teachings of Clark, Agrawal, KOIZUMI and Rothbarth before him/her, to further modify Clark with the teaching of Rothbarth’s method and system for sharing storage space on a computer. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of not requiring an additional equipment and one or more users share storage space on their computers and also it more difficult, if not impossible, for malicious users to identify a remote back-up site for particular users (Rothbarth, Abstract and [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, the method steps of claim 7 substantially encompass the product recited in claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, the method steps of claim 7 substantially encompass the server recited in claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168