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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 6, 2026 has been received and entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-15 have been added. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 2, recites the limitation " the medium". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
All claims depend on rejected claims are also rejected.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites “A method tangible, computer-readable storage medium”, the claim fails to place the invention squarely within one statutory class of invention. The instant application specification recites “The term "transmission medium" may include any tangible or intangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions for execution by the machine, and includes digital or analog communications signals” in paragraph 81. As such, the claim is drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this claim is not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
For examination purpose, the machine-readable medium is interpreted as a “non-transitory" medium i.e. tangible storage device such as RAM, ROM, hard disk, CD or DVD.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,235,842.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions are obvious variants. Claim 1 of the Instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Patent 12,235,842 as shown in comparison table below.
Instant Application
Patent 12,235,842
1. A tangible, computer-readable storage medium, wherein the medium stores code that when executed by a computer system causes the computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving data in association with an application implemented with one or more processors and memory, the application being configured to manage disparate computing and storage resources;
accessing, by the application, a manifest file including data representing parameters to configure one or more clusters of servers to allocate storage of the data among partitioned portions of the one or more clusters of servers in accordance with the parameters specifying classes of servers and ranges of time characteristics;
determining aging of partitioned data associated with the partitioned portions based on the classes of servers and the ranges of time characteristics;
moving one or more subsets of the partitioned data associated with one or more of the partitioned portions to different partitioned portions of different server classes based on the aging of the partitioned data, each of the different server classes having an access speed, the different server classes being assigned to each of the one or more partitioned portions based on the access speed of a server class, the access speed and the server class being determined based on an anticipated number of query requests requesting retrieval of the partitioned data associated with each of the one or more partitioned portions;
receiving a query at a processor to retrieve the data stored as stored data among the among the partitioned portions;
evaluating the query to identify a time characteristic associated with the stored data;
identifying a location from which to retrieve the stored data based on the query to determine a partitioned portion of the different server classes in which the stored data resides as a function of the time characteristic; and
rewriting the query to run on at least one server of the one or more clusters of servers.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving data in association with an application implemented with one or more processors and memory, the application being configured to manage disparate computing and storage resources;
accessing, by the application, a manifest file including data representing parameters to configure one or more clusters of servers to allocate storage of the data among partitioned portions of the one or more clusters of servers in accordance with the parameters specifying classes of servers and ranges of time characteristics;
determining aging of partitioned data associated with the partitioned portions based on the classes of servers and the ranges of time characteristics;
moving one or more subsets of the partitioned data associated with one or more of the partitioned portions to different partitioned portions of different server classes based on the aging of the partitioned data, each of the different server classes having an access speed, the different server classes being assigned to each of the one or more partitioned portions based on the access speed of a server class, the access speed and the server class being determined based on an anticipated number of query requests requesting retrieval of the partitioned data associated with each of the one or more partitioned portions;
receiving a query at a processor to retrieve the data stored as stored data among the among the partitioned portions;
evaluating the query to identify a time characteristic associated with the stored data;
identifying a location from which to retrieve the stored data based on the query to determine a partitioned portion of the different server classes in which the stored data resides as a function of the time characteristic; and
rewriting the query to run on at least one server of the one or more clusters of servers.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the additional elements “tangible, computer-readable storage medium, wherein the medium stores code that when executed by a computer system causes the computer system to perform operations” of claims 1 of the Instant application to arrive at the claim 1 of Patent 12,235,842 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, 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 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights