DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on July 02, 2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for further examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on April 13, 2026, complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. After further reviewing Applicant’s arguments in the lieu of the original specification. It is conceivable that the claimed amendment does not integrate into a practical application that would render the claims eligible under 35 USC 101 because it is known to rebuild a log after a node failure to prevent inconsistency in the pages of the persistent memory. Therefore, rebuilding the log as part of recovering the node from the failure is not a technical solution nor improve the persistent memory. The step of determining that execution of an operation will result in a page being removed from persistent memory of a node” is identified to be directed to abstract idea. It is clear that the term “will” results to uncertainty as whether that the page being removed from the persistent memory. Also the step of “traversing a file system tree of a file system of the node to reconstruct a current new list of page block numbers of pages to remove from the persistent memory, wherein the file system tree is traversed to identify page block numbers, no longer referenced within the file system tree, for inclusion within the new list of page block numbers” is identified to be directed to abstract. And the step of “rebuilding the queue by populating the queue with the page block numbers from the new current list of page block numbers for processing the query to remove the pages from the persistent memory” amounts to extra solution activity. The claim does not provide any end result under the condition when determining that execution of an operation will not result in a page being removed from the persistent memory of a node.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 9 and 16 recite the term “will”. The term “will” refers to an operation that would occur in the future and it is not acceptable in the claimed language. The use of the term “will” makes the claim less definite and introduces doubt or uncertainty about whether a page would actually be removed from the persistent memory of a node. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 9 and 16 recite “in response to determining that execution of an operation will result in a page being removed from persistent memory of a node, insert a page block number of the page into a non-persistent log of page block numbers of pages to remove from the persistent memory”. The clause “an operation will result in a page” refers to an operation that would occur in the future. The use of the term “will” makes the claim less definite and introduces doubt or uncertainty about whether a page would actually be removed from the persistent memory of a node. Furthermore, the claim does not provide any end result under the condition when determining that execution of an operation will not result in a page being removed from the persistent memory of a node.
Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are also rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method
Claims 9-15 are directed to a computer device.
Claims 16-20 are directed at a non-transitory machine-readable medium.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “inserting a page block number of the page into a queue of page block numbers of pages to the persistent memory in response to determining that execution of an operation will result in a page being removed from persistent memory of a node” in claims 1, 16 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can manually with the aid of pen and paper insert a page block number of the page into a queue of page block numbers of pages to the persistent memory based on determining that execution of an operation will result in a page being removed from persistent memory of a node.
The limitation “traversing a file system tree of a file system of the node to reconstruct a new list of page block numbers of pages to remove from the persistent memory, wherein the file system tree is traversed to identify page block numbers, no longer referenced within the file system tree, for inclusion within the new list of page block numbers” in claims 1, 16 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can manually with the aid of pen and paper traverse a file system tree of a file system of the node to reconstruct a new list of page block numbers of pages to remove from the persistent memory based on the node rebooting from a failure.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
The limitation “rebuilding the queue by populating the queue with the page block numbers from the new current list of page block numbers for processing the query to remove the pages from the persistent memory” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “processor, and persistent memory and non-transitory machine-readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
With respect to the “rebuilding ….” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the “processor, and persistent memory and non-transitory machine readable medium” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion, and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 15 and 20 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “invoking, by a frontend process of the node, an add page block number interface to insert the page block number into the queue”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for invoking, by a frontend process of the node, an add page block number interface to insert the page block number into the queue, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “traversing a file system buftree to identify page block numbers of the file system that are not referenced by the file system buftree” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The limitation “reconstructing the new list of pages block numbers the current list of to include the page block numbers of the file system that are not referenced by the file system buftree” is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for reconstructing the new list of pages block numbers the current list of to include the page block numbers of the file system that are not referenced by the file system buftree, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites identifying page block numbers to include within the current new list of page block numbers of pages to remove from the persistent memory based upon the file system tree no longer referencing the page block numbers” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 5 recites “providing access to the queue as a non-persistent log through a global per-host in-core structure” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for providing access to the queue as a non-persistent log through a global per-host in-core structure, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “implementing the queue as a non-persistent log of volatile memory pages comprising page block numbers to free” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for implementing the queue as a non-persistent log of volatile memory pages comprising page block numbers to free, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “populating a volatile memory page with a header that includes a list of entries of page block numbers to free” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for populating a volatile memory page with a header that includes a list of entries of page block numbers to free, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “applying a read/write lock to the non-persistent log to allow multiple processes to read from the non-persistent log and to provide write access to no more than one process at time to the non-persistent log” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for applying a read/write lock to the non-persistent log to allow multiple processes to read from the non-persistent log and to provide write access to no more than one process at time to the non-persistent log, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “populate the non-persistent log with a log page comprising a header followed by a list of entries for the log page; populate the list of entries with the page block numbers to free; and provide access to the non-persistent log through a file system superblock of the file system” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for populating the non-persistent log with a log page comprising a header followed by a list of entries for the log page; populating the list of entries with the page block numbers to free; and providing access to the non-persistent log through a file system superblock of the file system, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 11 recites “populate the non-persistent log with log pages”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for populating the non-persistent log with log pages, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation “insert a next pointer and a previous pointer into a log page to point back to a prior log page and point forward to a next log page” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 12 recites “populate the non-persistent log with generation counts of pages to free, wherein a generation count corresponds to a number of times the page has been evicted from the persistent memory” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for populating the non-persistent log with generation counts of pages to free, wherein a generation count corresponds to a number of times [[a]]the page has been evicted from the persistent memory, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “execute worker to process the non-persistent log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the non-persistent log” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing worker to process the non-persistent log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the non-persistent log, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “execute a plurality of workers to asynchronously process the non-persistent log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the non- persistent log” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing a plurality of workers to asynchronously process the non-persistent log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the non- persistent log, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites “in response to a frontend process having a backlog of processing to perform for the persistent memory, trigger execution of a background worker to process the non-persistent log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the non-persistent log” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for triggering execution of a background worker to process the non-persistent log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the non-persistent log, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “use a persistent per-page structure state to track log pages, within the log, as having a file system log type” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for using a persistent per-page structure state to track log pages, within the log, as having a file system log type, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 18 recites “filter pages within the persistent memory using the file system log type to identify the log pages of the log within the persistent memory” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for filtering pages within the persistent memory using the file system log type to identify the log pages of the log within the persistent memory, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “utilize the file system log type to distinguish between the log pages and pages correspond to an inofile or page tree of a file” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for utilizing the file system log type to distinguish between the log pages and pages correspond to an inofile or page tree of a file, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites “execute a worker to process the log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the log” .This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing a worker to process the log to free pages associated with the page block numbers within the log, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210326309 (involved in utilizing a log to free pages from persistent memory. A log is maintained to comprise a list of page block numbers of pages within persistent memory of a node to free. A page block number, of a page, within the log is identified for processing. A reference count, corresponding to a number of references to the page block number, is identified. In response to the reference count being greater than 1, the reference count is decremented and the page block number is removed from the log. In response to the reference count being 1, the page is freed from the persistent memory and the page block number is removed from the log).
US 20210328593 (involved in implementing a file system format for persistent memory. A node, comprising persistent memory, receives an operation comprising a file identifier and file system instance information. A list of file system info objects are evaluated to identify a file system info object matching the file system instance information. An inofile, identified by the file system info object as being associated with inodes of files within an instance of the file system targeted by the operation, is traversed to identify an inode matching the file identifier. If the inode comprises an indicator that the file is tiered into the persistent memory, then the inode it utilized to facilitate execution of the operation upon the persistent memory. Otherwise, the operation is routed to a storage file system tier for execution by a storage file system upon storage associated with the node.)
US 20180293135 (involved in initiating execution of a page flusher in an in-memory database system where pages are loaded into memory and including associated physical disk storage. The pages loaded into the memory of the database system that are modified and that are to be flushed to the physical disk storage are identified. Each identified page is assigned with a different ordered physical page number. An asynchronous write input/output (I/O) is triggered causing the identified pages to be flushed to the physical disk storage and stored in the physical disk storage according to their assigned physical page numbers.)
US 20130117241 A1 (involved in initiating replay of data transactions in a data storage application (104). Pages of a log segment directory are loaded into a memory unit, where the directory characterizes metadata for a set of log segments. Redundant pages are removed within the directory. Determination is made to check which of the segments are needed to be accessed based on the directory. The segments that need to be accessed are accessed to execute a log replay. The pages having same index as another page and correct checksum value with a lower page generation value are removed.)
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 September 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights