DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 07/02/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 11, 10, and 19 are independent claims. In Amendment, claims 1, 3, 10, 12, and 19-20 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 is/are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein all the limitations in these claims including “determining…”; “converting…”; “performing…”; and “retrieving,…, storage location information…” are functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A.
Under Prong II step 2A, the other limitations in the claims including “for execution by one or more processing…”; “at least one interface”; “memory…”; “one or more processing module…”; and “at least one memory section…” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation “retrieving the data…” is merely post-activity solution for gathering/obtaining the data over the network which amount insignificant to the judicial exception.
Under step 2B, these additional elements above either individually or in combination are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation “retrieving the data…” is merely post-activity solution for gathering/obtaining the data over the network which amount insignificant to the judicial exception. Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 2-9, these claims recite the limitations which further detailing the abstract idea limitations identified above. Thus, all of these limitations are considered as functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A. Thus, these claims do not recite any additional elements that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claims 11-18, these claims are device claims having similar limitations cited in claims 2-9 respectively. Thus, claims 11-18 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 2-9 respectively above.
Re claim 20, it is medium claim having similar limitations cited in claims 4 and 8. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 4, 8, (abstract idea under the mental process).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quigley et al. (U.S. 2010/0332751 A1).
Re claim 1, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 a method for execution by one or more processing modules of a storage network (e.g. abstract and Figure 1-3 wherein the data can be retrieved from the DSN), the method comprises: determining to retrieve data from the storage network, the data having an associated asset identifier (e.g. Figures 3 and 14 and paragraphs [0061-0064 and paragraphs [0068-0071] with the source name 35); converting the asset identifier into a range identifier (e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0072] with data segmenting); performing a deterministic function on the range identifier to produce a lookup value (e.g. Figure 14 with the Virtual DSN address component of the grid module and paragraphs [125-127]); retrieving, based on the lookup value, storage location information for the data (e.g. Figure 14 output of physical memory addressing table to the DS storage unit X for retrieving actual file/object and paragraphs [0080-0081 and 126-128]); and retrieving the data from the storage network location based on the storage location information for the data (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0061-0063, 0081, and 0089] with retrieving the data blocks/slices ).
Re claim 2, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 converting the asset identifier into a range identifier comprises deleting a portion of the asset identifier (e.g. paragraphs [0124-0125] wherein certain information is not needed in conversion as other).
Re claim 3, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 a number of bits of the range identifier is less than a number of bits of the asset identifier (e.g. paragraphs [0071-0073 and 0091-0092]).
Re claim 4, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 the deterministic function is a hashing function (e.g. paragraphs [0071-0076]).
Re claim 5, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 retrieving storage location information for the data includes retrieving metadata associated with the data (e.g. Figure 14 with all information of the source name and paragraphs [0123-0127]).
Re claim 6, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 the data is an encoded data slice associated with storage of a data object (e.g. abstract, Figures 16-17 and paragraphs [0054-057]).
Re claim 7, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 the asset identifier includes at least one of a source name or a slice name (e.g. Figure 14 with the source name 35 and paragraphs [0123-0127]).
Re claim 8, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 retrieving storage location information includes retrieving metadata from a storage node of the storage network associated with the lookup value (e.g. Figure 14 by the physical location determinator and paragraphs [0125-0128]).
Re claim 9, Quigley et al. disclose in Figures 1-28 the data is dispersed storage error encoded data (e.g. Figures 15-17 and paragraphs [0055 and 0073]).
Re claim 10, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 11, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 12, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 13, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 14, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 15, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 16, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 17, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Re claim 18, it is device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Re claim 19, it is medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 20, it is medium claim having similar limitations cited in claims 4 and 8. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 4 and 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in page 6 for claims that the newly added limitation which retrieving the data would integrate into a practical application.
The examiner respectfully submits that the amendment, particularly the added limitation, does not sufficiently overcome the abstract idea rejection as integrate into the practical application as alleged by the applicant. The claim is broadly claiming the step of retrieving/getting the data without detailing how and structure/protocol for retrieving the data. Thus, the newly added limitation is merely considered as insignificant post-activity solution amount to the judicial exception.
The applicant argues in pages 7-8 for claims that the reference fail to disclose the range identifier so that it would performing a deterministic function on the range identifier to produce a lookup value.
The examiner respectfully submits that this range identifier is clearly seen in the reference as rejected above with Figures and paragraph [0072]. The reference has very similar claimed invention as the pending application wherein the range identifier is merely a set of location that the data can be retrieved which can be additionally seen in paragraphs [0112-0114].
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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights