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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 11/05/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: none
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “because the Office Action fails to identify specific overlapping claim limitations, analyze the differences between claims…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The difference in the claim language is in 941 including a querying step to identify the records for moving while the instant application using a scanner to identify the files for moving.
Applicant(s) argues “… The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that software-implemented invention may constitute statutory process…”
Examiner disagreed with the above argument. As discloses “the 35 U.S.C 101 read follow: 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title”, claims 1-7 and 15-20 are fallen within these categories.
Applicant also argues ‘assuming the, arguendo, the Office action properly reached step 2A…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. The monitoring and determining steps are the mental processes. The communicate…, trigger… and cause movement… are generalization concepts. The additional elements are not amount to insignificantly more.
Applicant argues “the Office Action asserts, in substance, that Suit and Cannata together “rebalancing engine” and associated with functions…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Suit discloses the migration to from one location to another location. The method also further migrating using time interval as to triggering the transferring event (is triggering process). The characteristics for rebalancing engine to migrate are not defined and broad. Any determining for moving the files one container to another container can also be viewed as characteristics (as container characteristics). The query is being done parsing to identify the attribute and move the file to remote location.
Applicant(s) argues “a person of ordinary skill in the art of distributed storage system would no reason to consult Kang….”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The kang may be in different field of endeavor, however, the combination of Kang, Suit and Cannata would expect the same results (KSR).
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 03/05/2026. The submission is in
compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/229,084. Although the claims at issue are
not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application directs to
the same subject matter such monitoring the local data storage container to identify the
container-characteristics, communicate to the remote rebalancing engine to determine where
the appropriated destination for the files to be moved. The differences are, the instant application includes triggering a rebalancing scanner in the local data container to query a candidate first database for files to be transferred or to scan a file system of the local data container to identify files to be transferred to the at least one selected destination data container and to store result of the rebalancing scanner is a candidate file database. The 084 include generate a query to identify the one or more files from the local data container to be moved to the selected destination data container, receive a response to the query indicating the one or more files to be moved from the local data container and store the results of the query indicating the one or more files to be moved in candidate database. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify 084 to arrive the same invention was
claimed.
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 1-7 does/do not fall within at least one
of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim the rebalancing engine in
claim 1 directed to the software which is not a process (method), system or article of
manufacture as required. Claims 15-20 are directed to a distributed file system which is a
software system the container is subset directory not a physical container such as disk.
Therefore, the file system is a software system.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible non-transitory computer
readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite the limitation
"monitoring one or more container-level characteristic associated with files stored in a local data container and communicate with one or more remote rebalancing engines remote rebalancing engines in one or more corresponding remote data container to determining one or more selected destination file or the segments from the local data container can be moved in response to at least one of the one or more container characteristics exceeding a corresponding pre-selected threshold” are the processes under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes"
grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recite instructions which can be performed by a user using a generic computer processor.
“Trigger a rebalancing scanner in the local data container to query a candidate file database for files to be transferred or to scan a file system of the local data container to identify files to be transferred to the at least one selected destination data container and to store results of the rebalancing scanner in a candidate file database and cause movement of one or more files as indicated by the candidate file database to the selected destination data container” is process of retrieving data to be moved to another location.
“Cause movement of one or more files as indicated by the candidate file database to the selected destination data container” is the concept of moving date from one location to another.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have
found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial
exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a
particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by
a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see
MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2, 9 and 20, the limitation "determining whether the container-level
parameters exceed one or more predetermined thresholds comprises determining if a current
size of a file system of the first container is greater than an optimal usage size of the file system
of the first container by determining whether an excess size of the file system of the first
container is greater that the optimal usage size of the file system of the first container is greater
than a threshold" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed
in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly,
the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 3 and 10, the limitation "triggering the rebalancing scanner further
comprises causing the rebalancing scanner to change from an inactive state to an active state
prior to querying the candidate file database or scanning the file system" is an additional
element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
Claims 4, 11 and 18, the limitation "transmitting the query to a rebalancing scanner in the
local container, wherein the rebalancing scanner inserts entries for candidate files into a
candidate file database based on analysis of metadata corresponding to the files of the local
container" is additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 5, 12 and 17, the limitation "selecting one or more files to transfer from a set
of candidate files based at least on capacity available on the second container and on a
determination of storage capacity to be gained in the first container in response to movement of
a selected file" is an additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, the limitation "the rebalancing engine of the local container
shares container-level file system information with at least one rebalancing engine of a remote
container on a periodic schedule" is defined only what rebalancing engine is and insignificant to
amount significantly more.
As to claims 7, 1 and 16, the limitation "the rebalancing engine determines one or more
of: an Optimal Usage Size, which refers to a preselected usage level corresponding to a storage
capacity of a container; a Current Usage Size, which refers to current storage capacity utilized
by a container; a Maximum Usage Size, which refers to a storage capacity value that is greater
than the Optimal Usage Size and is used to trigger rebalancing operations; and a Balancing
Threshold, which refers to a threshold value that can be utilized to terminate rebalancing
operations" is defined what rebalancing engine to determine is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under
35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Suit (Patent No. US 9,813,353 B1) in view of Cannata et al. (Pub. No. US
2023/0169017 A1).
As to claim 1, Suit discloses a rebalancing engine in a local data container of a
distributed file system having a plurality of data containers, each data container having its own
rebalancing engine interconnected to communicate with rebalancing engines in other data
containers, the rebalancing engine to facilitate movement of files or file segments within the
distributed file system, the rebalancing engine in the local data container to:
monitor one or more container-level characteristics associated with files stored in a local
data container (the content parser 240 identifies volumes with directory attributes and parses for
the "last modified" field to to assemble the list of candidate files to be migrated to cloud storage)
(col. 7, lines 27-29);
communicate with one or more remote rebalancing engines in one or more
corresponding remote data containers to determine one or more selected destination data
containers to which files or file segments from the local data container can be moved in
response to at least one of the one or more container-level characteristics exceeding a
corresponding pre-selected threshold (the storage content migration server (SCMS) 109 may be
responsible for accepting invitations or request for file migration and identifying file locations,
and the...) (col. 8, lines 41-55);
trigger a rebalancing scanner in the local data container to query a candidate file
database for files to be transferred (the content parser 240 identifies volumes with directory
attributes and parses for the "last modified" fields to assemble a list of candidate files to be migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29) or to scan a file system of the local data
container to identify files to be transferred to the at least one selected destination data container
and to store results of the rebalancing scanner in a candidate file database (the list gathered by
the parser engine is then added to the database) (col. 7, lines 29-31); and
cause movement of one or more files as indicated by the candidate file database to the
selected destination data container (the method may also include identifying a change in a data
file inventory and generating a file list of potential candidate files for the data migration to the
cloud server and storing the file list in the database periodically) (col. 10, lines 26-30).
Suit does not mention about rebalancing engine in both remote or local; however, the
rebalancing engine is a software to manage the storage contain to migrate when certain
conditions are met such file has not been modified or container capacity is reach. On the other
hand, Cannata discloses rebalancing engine in both remote or local (rebalancing engine) (a
computing system 110 may act as both host and client to itself, to "remotely" access its own
local peripherals. Such an implementation may simplify resource rebalancing amount
computing device and remote computing system.. " (paragraph 0044). This suggests the
rebalancing engine in both remote or local. Therefore, would have been obvious to one
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching
of Suit to include rebalancing engine in both remote or local as disclosed by Cannata in order
provide rebalancing between containers.
As to claim 4, Suit discloses the rebalancing engine of claim 1, further comprising
transmitting the query to a rebalancing scanner in the local container, wherein the rebalancing
scanner inserts entries for candidate files into a candidate file database based on analysis of
metadata corresponding to the files of the local container (data files may be migrated
periodically and can be updated according to audit procedure of updated list of files that are
acceptable for migration) (col. 11, lines 3-6).
As to claim 6, Suit discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rebalancing engine of
the local container shares container-level file system information with at least one rebalancing
engine of a remote container on a periodic schedule (interval) (col. 11, lines 3-6).
Claim 8 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Suit discloses a non-transitory
computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause a
rebalancing engine of a local data container in a distributed file system having a plurality of data
containers.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6
As to claim 15, Suit discloses distributed file system comprising:
a plurality of containers each having at least a rebalancing engine to facilitate movement
of files within the distributed file system (the content parser 240 identifies volumes with directory
attributes and parses for the "last modified" field to assemble the list of candidate files to be
migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29), a rebalancing scanner (the content parser 240
identifies volumes with directory attributes and parses for the "last modified" fields to assemble a list of candidate files to be migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29), and a candidate file
database, each of the plurality of containers to store one or more files and each of the plurality
of containers having corresponding container-level parameters for characteristics of files stored
on the container(the content parser 240 identifies volumes with directory attributes and parses
for the "last modified" field to assemble the list of candidate files to be migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29);
wherein a rebalancing first engine in a first container monitors one or more container-
level characteristics associated with files stored in a local data container and, communicate with
one or more remote rebalancing engines in one or more corresponding remote data containers
to determine one or more selected destination data containers to which files or file segments
from the local data container can be moved in response to at least one of the one or more
container-level characteristics exceeding a corresponding pre-selected threshold (the content
parser 240 identifies volumes with directory attributes and parses for the "last modified" fields to
assemble a list of candidate files to be migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29);
wherein a second rebalancing engine in a second container indicates to the first
rebalancing engine in the first container whether the second container is available to receive
one or more files from the first container (the content parser 240 identifies volumes with
directory attributes and parses for the "last modified" fields to assemble a list of candidate files
to be migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29);
wherein the first rebalancing engine, responsive to an indication from the second
rebalancing engine that the second container is available to receive one or more files from the
first container, triggers a rebalancing scanner in the local data container to query a candidate
file database for files to be transferred or to scan a file system of the local data container to
identify files to be transferred to the at least one selected destination data container and to store
results of the rebalancing scanner in a candidate file database (the content parser 240 identifies
volumes with directory attributes and parses for the "last modified" fields to assemble a list of
candidate files to be migrated to cloud storage) (col. 7, lines 27-29), and causes movement of
one or more files as indicated by the candidate file database to the selected destination data
container.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
6. Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Suit (Patent No. US 9,813,353 B1) in view of Cannata et al. (Pub. No. US
2023/0169017 A1) and further in view of Akelbein (Pub. No. US 2006/0136525).
As to claim 2, Suit and Cannata disclose the rebalancing engine of claim 1 excepting for
wherein determining whether the container-level parameters exceed one or more predetermined
thresholds comprises determining if a current size of a file system of the first container is greater
than an optimal usage size of the file system of the first container by determining whether an
excess size of the file system of the first container is greater that the optimal usage size of the
file system of the first container is greater than a threshold. However, Akelbein discloses
wherein determining whether the container-level parameters exceed one or more predetermined
thresholds comprises determining if a current size of a file system of the first container is greater
than an optimal usage size of the file system of the first container by determining whether an
excess size of the file system of the first container is greater that the optimal usage size of the
file system of the first container is greater than a threshold (policies considering a different set of
attributes can also be used to compute a quantitive measurement of the eligible of an individual
file. A HSM application migrates data with the highest score in each particular file system when
the amount of used capacity of the disk storage exceeded the high threshold...) (paragraph
0009). This suggests the claimed language wherein determining whether the container-level
parameters exceed one or more predetermined thresholds comprises determining if a current
size of a file system of the first container is greater than an optimal usage size of the file system
of the first container by determining whether an excess size of the file system of the first
container is greater that the optimal usage size of the file system of the first container is greater
than a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of both Suit and Cannata to include wherein determining whether the container-level parameters exceed one or more
predetermined thresholds comprises determining if a current size of a file system of the first
container is greater than an optimal usage size of the file system of the first container by
determining whether an excess size of the file system of the first container is greater that the
optimal usage size of the file system of the first container is greater than a threshold as
disclosed by Akelbein in order to provide data migration service.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
As to claim 5, Suit and Cannata disclose the rebalancing engine of claim 1 excepting for
selecting one or more files to transfer from a set of candidate files based at least on capacity
available on the second container and on a determination of storage capacity to be gained in
the first container in response to movement of a selected file. However, Akelbein discloses
selecting one or more files to transfer from a set of candidate files based at least on capacity
available on the second container and on a determination of storage capacity to be gained in
the first container in response to movement of a selected file (policies considering a different set
of attributes can also be used to compute a quantitive measurement of the eligible of an
individual file. A HSM application migrates data with the highest score in each particular file
system when the amount of used capacity of the disk storage exceeded the high threshold...)
(paragraph 0009). This suggested the claim language selecting one or more files to transfer
from a set of candidate files based at least on capacity available on the second container and
on a determination of storage capacity to be gained in the first container in response to
movement of a selected file. The local disk is gaining more space while the tape is losing the
space by providing enough space for migrating file is the purpose of data migration to move inactive file more to permanent location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant to modify teaching of Suit and
Cannata to include selecting one or more files to transfer from a set of candidate files based at
least on capacity available on the second container and on a determination of storage capacity
to be gained in the first container in response to movement of a selected file as disclosed by
Akelbein in order to provide the data migration process.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
As to claim 7, Suit and Cannata discloses the rebalancing engine of claim 1 excepting
for wherein the rebalancing engine determines one or more of: an Optimal Usage Size, which
refers to a preselected usage level corresponding to a storage capacity of a container; a Current
Usage Size, which refers to current storage capacity utilized by a container; a Maximum Usage
Size, which refers to a storage capacity value that is greater than the Optimal Usage Size and is
used to trigger rebalancing operations; and a Balancing Threshold, which refers to a threshold
value that can be utilized to terminate rebalancing operations. Akelbein discloses wherein the
rebalancing engine determines one or more of: an Optimal Usage Size, which refers to a
preselected usage level corresponding to a storage capacity of a container; a Current Usage
Size, which refers to current storage capacity utilized by a container; a Maximum Usage Size,
which refers to a storage capacity value that is greater than the Optimal Usage Size and is used
to trigger rebalancing operations (policies considering a different set of attributes can also be
used to compute a quantitive measurement of the eligible of an individual file. A HSM
application migrates data with the highest score in each particular file system when the amount
of used capacity of the disk storage exceeded the high threshold...) (paragraph 0009); and a
balancing Threshold, which refers to a threshold value that can be utilized to terminate
rebalancing operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the Suit and Cannata to include a Maximum Usage Size, which
refers to a storage capacity value that is greater than the Optimal Usage Size and is used to
trigger rebalancing operations as disclosed by Akelbein in order to provide data migration to
save space.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
7. Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suit
(Patent No. US 9,813,353 B1) in view of Cannata et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0169017 A1) and
further in view of Kang et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0064829 A1).
As to claim 3, Suit and Cannata disclose the rebalancing engine of claim 1 excepting for
wherein triggering the rebalancing scanner further comprises causing the rebalancing scanner
to change from an inactive state to an active state prior to querying the candidate file database
or scanning the file system. However, Kang discloses wherein triggering the rebalancing
scanner further comprises causing the rebalancing scanner to change from an inactive state to
an active state prior to querying the candidate file database or scanning the file system (the
terminal enters an "active" state prior to its assigned slot, monitors the paging channel for
messages, and transitions to an "inactive" state if additional communication is not required...)
(paragraph 0006). This suggested the claim language wherein triggering the rebalancing
scanner further comprises causing the rebalancing scanner to change from an inactive state to
an active state prior to querying the candidate file database or scanning the file system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
the of the instant application to modify Suit and Cannata to include triggering the rebalancing
scanner further comprises causing the rebalancing scanner to change from an inactive state to
an active state prior to querying the candidate file database or scanning the file system as
disclosed by Kang in order to provide scanning process.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Conclusion
8. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights