DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on January 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,465. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘465 Patent anticipates the instant claims.
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 1-6, 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite abstract subject matter directed towards retrieving, viewing and updating data. Specifically, the Claims recite:
querying, by a control plane service processor of the distributed data storage system, a web service for a listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service – Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
receiving, by the control plane service processor from the web service, the listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service and a current status of the data nodes - Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
providing, from the control plane service processor to a first database agent of a router node, the listing of data nodes with the current status of the data nodes – Identifying a list from received data is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
consuming, by a second database agent of the router node, the listing of data nodes and the current status of the data nodes – Receiving or sending information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
updating, by the second database agent of the router node, a database topology file based on the current status of the data nodes in the listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service – Updating information based on received information is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware such as a processor, memory, etc executing the abstract idea. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims, 2-5, 12-14 and 17-19, further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0198860) in view of Bono et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0127387).
Claims 1, 11 and 16: Bothwell discloses a method, a non-transitory machine readable medium and a system for a control plane service updating data router nodes in a distributed data storage system, comprising:
querying, by a control plane service processor of the distributed data storage system, a web service for a listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service [0205]. [See at least searching a node list.]
receiving, by the control plane service processor from the web service, the listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service and a current status of the data nodes [0205]. [See at least the Node List that is at least based on a search.]
providing, from the control plane service processor to a first database agent of a router node, the listing of data nodes with the current status of the data nodes [0205-0206]. [See at least “The Node dashboard provides an overview of a particular node's status, properties…”]
consuming, by a second database agent of the router node, the listing of data nodes and the current status of the data nodes [0205-0206].
Bothwell alone does not explicitly disclose updating, by the second database agent of the router node, a database topology file based on the current status of the data nodes in the listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service.
However, Bothwell [0159] discloses that updates in status is “published to the Topology Database 97 and Temporal Datastore…” While, Bothwell clearly updates a topology database, which is a data structure, Bothwell does not explicitly disclose a topology file is updated. Bono [0109], on the other hand, discloses updating a topology file based on changes made in a system. The combination of Bothwell and Bono would update a topology file as in Bono based at least on changes to status metrics as in Bothwell.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bothwell with Bono. One would have been motivated to do so in order to store status metrics in a particular data format, such as a file.
Claims 2-3, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0198860) in view of Bono et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0127387) and further in view of Yao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0055658).
Claims 2, 12 and 17: Bothwell as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 10 and 16 above, but Bothwell alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the querying of the web service by the control plane service processor is performed periodically at a first frequency, wherein a querying of a cache data store by a first database agent of a database node for health status metrics of the cache data store is performed periodically at a second frequency, and wherein the first frequency and the second frequency are different.
However, However, Yao [0054] discloses querying periodically a cache manager that manages compute caches (i.e. cache data store) regarding its status; See at least Bothwell [0162] for querying periodically at a different frequency.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bothwell with Yao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify which cache may be used and which cannot and at which period time period.
Claim 3: Bothwell as modified discloses the method of Claim 2 above, but while Bothwell [0162] discloses periodically, based on a particular set interval, querying the node status, Bothwell alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency is less than the second frequency.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for a user to modify the interval at which node status is requested based on particular timing in order to select the most appropriate times to request such information.
Claims 4-5, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0198860) in view of Bono et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0127387) and further in view of Theimer (US Patent 9,471,585).
Claims 4, 13 and 18: Bothwell as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 10 and 16 above, but Bothwell alone does not explicitly disclose provisioning, by the control plane service processor at the web service, a new data node for a data node in the listing of data nodes that is associated with an unhealthy or down status; causing, by the control plane service processor, data stored by the data node to be populate the new data node; assigning, by the control plane service processor, the new data node to a position within an ordering of data nodes in the database topology file associated with the data node.
However, Theimer (Col 43 ln 19-44) discloses replacing a node when it is at least unhealthy and Bono [0109] discloses updating a topology file based on changes made to nodes.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bothwell with Theimer and Bono. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide continuity in a system when a bad node is identified.
Claim 5: Bothwell as modified discloses the method of Claim 4 above, and Theimer, for the same reasons as above further discloses wherein assigning the new data node comprises assigning a network address of the new data node to the position within the ordering of data nodes in the database topology file (Col 43 ln 45-67).
Claims 6, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0198860) in view of Bono et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0127387) and further in view of Coekaerts (US Patent 7,451,359).
Claims 6, 14 and 19: Bothwell as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 11 and 16 above, but Bothwell alone does not explicitly disclose initiating, by the control plane service processor, a global router node topology update comprising providing, by the control plane service processor, the listing of data nodes provisioned by the web service with the current status of the data nodes to database agents of all router nodes of the distributed data storage system causing a database topology file update at each of the router nodes.
However, Bono [0109] discloses updating a topology file based on changes made in a system and Coekaerts (Col 47-64) discloses updating a topology and notifying each node of a topology change.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bothwell with Bono and Coekaerts. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide updated networking information by at least updating nodes regarding topology changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163