Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the RCE filed 09/24/2026.
4. Each of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 23 have been amended and no claims have been added or cancelled.
5. The office action is made non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 07/09/2025, 08/04/2025, 10/27/2025 and 06/11/2026, 09/24/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Applicants’ IDS submissions are deemed excessive and do not conform to the best practices for IDS submissions, as detailed below.
Applicants have no "duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim", and information is material to patentability only "when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application". See 37 CFR 1.56(a) & (b). Further, applicants are requested to "eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information [and] if a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance". See MPEP 2004(14). An applicant’s duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real-world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
MPEP 609 states that "consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of prior art in a proper field of search." Because applicant did not submit any explanatory remarks along with the IDS which provide an indication of how the IDS submissions are "material to the patentability of any existing claim" nor did applicant “highlight those documents [having the] most significance", given the volume of the submissions, the examiner has conducted only a cursory review and has not reviewed the documents thoroughly or in any particularized or individualized detail. Applicant is invited and requested to submit explanatory remarks “highlighting” those portion(s) of the document(s) that are of relevancy to the "patentability of any existing claim".
By signing the accompanying 1449 forms, Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made. Finally, applicant should further note that nothing in this section is intended by the examiner to indicate a requirement for information for information under 37 CFR 1.105, but applicant is otherwise required to conform to other rules, requirements, and best practices regarding the submission of IDS documents, as noted above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 1 recites At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a computing node, cause the computing node to perform a series of steps. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium falls within the “manufacture” category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 9 recites a system comprising: at least one processor. The claim is directed to a physical circuit, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 17 recites the steps or acts… and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of inventions. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite in part the steps:
retrieve a user identifier from the first event data record.
Retrieving/extracting a user identifier from the event data record" is considered an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because it is performed using conventional computer, network, and data processing techniques. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, this type of claim is often viewed as a form of "data collection, recognition, and storage" which falls under the judicial exception of an abstract idea (specifically, methods of organizing human activity or mental processes).
access a cached conversion table configured to store associations between user identifiers and usernames.
Looking up a username using a corresponding user ID is an electronic version of a mental process or a conventional method of organizing human activity (like looking up a name in a physical phone book or index card catalog). The Federal Circuit routinely rules that retrieving, storing, and mapping data using conventional database or memory structures (like a conversion table or cache) constitutes an abstract idea rather than a patent-eligible physical invention.
determine whether the cached conversion table includes the user identifier; in response to a determination that the cached conversion table does not include the user identifier, retrieve a username from an active directory of the distributed VFS via a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP); and in response to a determination that the cached conversion table does include the user identifier, retrieve the username from the cached conversion table.
At its core, this text describes a conditional data retrieval process based on a lookup table (checking a cache and fetching from a primary source if it's missing). Courts frequently categorize such operations as abstract because they mirror methods of organizing human activity or mental processes. For example, A person looking at a personal Rolodex (the cached conversion table) and, if the name isn't there, looking it up in a corporate phonebook (the Active Directory via LDAP) is a fundamental conceptual analog.
provide a metric associated with the distributed VFS based at least in part on the username.
Computing a metric (e.g., file system usage analytics, access frequency, data volume) is categorized as mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations.
Therefore, the steps of claims 1, 9 and 17 fall under the category of "mental processes". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the additional elements of “receive, at an events processor and from a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS), a first event data record corresponding to an operation performed on a storage item managed by the distributed VFS”. is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recites the additional elements of “one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a computing node”, “an events processor”, and “a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS)”. Those elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, The Additional elements were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
However, the conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration considers whether the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The data gathering activities are recited at a high level of generality and have been recognized by the courts as being routine laboratory techniques. See Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or to detect allelic variants is conventional in the art); MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-24 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 15, 18 and 23 falls within of "methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes “groupings of abstract ideas.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22 and 24, fall within mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 fall within extra solution activities.
Examiner Note
9. The Examiner cites columns and line numbers in references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the way the invention was made.
12. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20060174323 A1) hereinafter as Brown in view of Mills et al (US 20140082513 A1) hereinafter as Mills.
13. Regarding claims 1-8, those claims recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction performs the method of claims 17-24 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
14. Regarding claims 9-16, those claims recite a system that performs the method of claims 17-24respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
15. Regarding claim 17, Brown teaches method comprising:
retrieving a user identifier from the first event data record (Fig 3, step 62, [0075], “After receiving the authentication notification and request for directory listing, local directory server 16 extracts a username or user identifier of agent 10 (62). This username, Kerberos Principal, or user identifier uniquely identifies a person or agent within the context of private network 12.”, [0076], “local directory server 16 cryptographically authenticates the query”);
access a cached conversion table configured to store associations between user identifiers and usernames ([0075-0077], “Local directory server 16 may alternatively cache the authorization records associated with a username received from authorization server 18 in some other manner convenient or preferred by local directory server 16 or compatible with private network 12.”);
determining whether the cached conversion table includes the user identifier (Fig 1, local directory server 16 (a cached conversion table), [0075-0077], “Local directory server 16 may alternatively cache the authorization records associated with a username received from authorization server 18”);
in response to a determination that the cached conversion table does not include the user identifier, retrieving a username from an active directory of the distributed VFS via a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) (Fig 1, local directory server 16 (a cached conversion table) and “Authorization server 18 (an active directory of the file server via a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP))”, [0036], “Authorization server 18 may store these authorization records in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol ("LDAP" (the language/protocol to talk to that directory)) directory (LADP directory), an electronic file, a relational database, or other data storage structure.”, Fig 3, step 64, [0076], “In many cases, it is acceptable to entity 4 to query authorization server 18 immediately after username authentication is successful (50) and to maintain a cache of the resulting authorization records (the cached conversion table). However, if the implementation does not use a cache or currently requires an authoritative refresh of the authorization records of the username, then local directory server 16 sends a cryptographically authenticated query containing the agent username to authorization server 18 (64) (an active directory of the file server via a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP))”);
in response to a determination that the cached conversion table does include the user identifier, retrieving the username from the cached conversion table ([0076-0076], “In many cases, it is acceptable to entity 4 to query authorization server 18 immediately after username authentication is successful (50) and to maintain a cache of the resulting authorization records.”); and
provide a metric associated with the distributed VFS based at least in part on the username ([0075-0077], “Local directory server 16 may alternatively cache the authorization records (metric) associated with a username received from authorization server 18”, [0135], “The third party may be a governing body that reports whether the entity remains in good standing, a credit rating agency that reports a credit score of the entity, an insurance agency that reports whether an insurance policy associated with the entity remains in force, and so on.”).
Brown did not specifically teach receiving, at an events processor and from a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS), a first event data record corresponding to an operation performed on a storage item managed by the distributed VFS.
However, Mills teaches receiving, at an events processor and from a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS), a first event data record corresponding to an operation performed on a storage item managed by the distributed VFS ([0005], “a log server (a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS), see Fig 6, [0065]) is provided , comprising…a processor (an events processor) configured to receive at least one logging event from the application server based upon activity of at least one entity, identify at least one action associated with the logging event (an operation performed on a storage item), create and store a log entry based on the logging event and the associated action (a first event data record)”, [0039], [0044], “In this exemplary network diagram, when the user of a client device (e.g., device 101-1) accesses application server 103, a log entry (a first event data record) is created based on user activity and stored in log server 104.”, Fig 6, [0065], “Log server 601 (a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS)) receives logging event information from app server 608 via interface 613. Application (App) server 608 corresponds to application server 103 and may include any server providing an application available to a user, such as email servers, file servers, Web servers, virtual machine servers, content management systems, authentication servers, or other servers that create log information and store it in a log (a first event data record)… Action database 605 and entity databases 607 provide storage of interactive log entries”, see also [0048], “Each row is a log entry (a first event data record), and the log entry is generated when a given event takes place, e.g., when a user saves a file, or when a user logs into a system (an operation performed on a storage item). Each data category may be presented as a numeric ID, or as a user-friendly name. User-friendly names may include the name of a user for the user category.”);
Also, Mills teaches retrieving a user identifier from the first event data record ([0035], “The logging system may be able to initiate actions on entities, such as to enable or disable access for a user based on their user ID (a user identifier)”, [0048], “Each row is a log entry, and the log entry is generated when a given event takes place, e.g., when a user saves a file, or when a user logs into a system. Each data category may be presented as a numeric ID, or as a user-friendly name. User-friendly names may include the name of a user for the user category.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Mills’s system into Brown’s and by incorporating Mills into Brown because both systems are related to event processing would provide context-sensitive interactive logging (Mills).
16. Regarding claim 18, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further Brown teaches adding the username retrieved from the active directory to the cached conversion table ([0076], “In many cases, it is acceptable to entity 4 to query authorization server 18 immediately after username authentication is successful (50) and to maintain a cache of the resulting authorization records.”).
17. Regarding claim 19, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further Mills teaches wherein the event data record corresponds with an event from the distributed VFS ([0005], [0039], [0044], Fig 6, [0065], see also [0048]”).
18. Regarding claim 20, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 19 above and further Mills teaches providing a metric associated with the distributed file server based in part on the username ([0005], [0039], [0044], Fig 6, [0065], see also [0048]”).
19. Regarding claim 21, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further Brown teaches wherein an analytics system comprises the events processor and an analytics datastore (Figs 1&5).
20. Regarding claim 22, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 21 above and further Brown teaches wherein the analytics datastore comprises the first event data record, the cached conversion table, or combinations thereof (Figs 1&5).
21. Regarding claim 23, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further Mills teaches wherein the lightweight directory access protocol is used to retrieve the username from the active directory of the file server for a network file system (NFS) file access storage protocol ([0005], [0039], [0044], Fig 6, [0065], see also [0048]”).
22. Regarding claim 24, Brown and Mills teach the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further Brown teaches wherein the conversion table comprises a unique user identifier-to-username relationship between for one or more of the unique user identifiers ([0075-0077]).
Respond to Amendments and Arguments
23. In the REM received 09/24/2026. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because the claims integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner is reminded that an improvement in the functioning of a computer system is indicative that the additional elements of the claim integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s arguments on claims 1-24 regarding Subject Matter Eligibility whether the claims are eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The steps describe basic mental processes and generic computer functions—looking up data in a table, checking for a match, and fetching data from a remote directory (LDAP) if a cache miss occurs. Also, retrieving an identifier from a log/record, deciding a path based on whether it exists in a list, and querying a server are conventional activities long performed by humans and generic computers.
24. In the REM received 09/24/2026. Applicant argued that Brown fails to teach one or more features of amended claims. For several reasons, including but not limited to, the following:
Brown does not disclose or suggest at least "receiving, at an events processor and from a file server virtual machine (FSVM) of a distributed virtualized file server (VFS), a first event data record corresponding to an operation performed on a storage item managed by the distributed VFS." Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection. ".
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
Applicants’ arguments (see REM, filed 09/24/2026), with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claims 1-24 is made under 35 USC § 103. Claims 1-24) are unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20060174323 A1) hereinafter as Brown in view of Mills et al (US 20140082513 A1) hereinafter as Mills.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
