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 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 07/09/2025.
4. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims.
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 and 10/27/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s IDS submissions are deemed excessive and not conforming to the best practices for IDS submissions, as detailed below.
Applicant has 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, applicant is 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 the 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 particular 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-20 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 invention. (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 event data record; determine whether a 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 file server 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 conversion table.”
"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).
A username-to-unique user identifier conversion table is considered an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically falling under the category of "methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes". Under the Alice/Mayo framework, simply mapping one set of data (usernames) to another (IDs) is considered a fundamental concept that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, making it ineligible for patent protection.
The conversion table constitutes "organizing information," which is a recognized abstract idea. Courts have found that simply using a computer to "store, organize, and retrieve memory in a logical table" is an abstract, conventional action.
The process of taking a name and assigning a corresponding unique identifier is a "mental process" that can be performed in the human mind, which is a key indicator of abstraction.
Therefore, the steps of claims 1, 9 and 17 falling under the category of "methods of organizing human activity" or "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 as a whole 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 as a whole 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, a first event data record corresponding to an operation performed on a storage item managed by a file server”. is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “an analytics system comprising an events processor and an analytics datastore” and claim 9 recites the additional elements of “an information processing apparatus”, and claim 17 recites the additional elements of “an events processor”, “a file server”. 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, a 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 takes into account whether or not 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, falls within mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claims 4, 12 and 20, falls within extra solution activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “the computing node”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Examiner Note
11. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the 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 the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 20060174323 A1) hereinafter as Brown.
15. 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.
16. Regarding claims 9-16, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 17-24respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
17. Regarding claim 17, Brown teaches A method comprising:
receiving, at an events processor, a first event data record corresponding to an operation performed on a storage item managed by a file server ([0038], “agent 10 may send a request to read one or more documents at entity 6 by double clicking on the hyperlink file representing the document.”, Fig 3, step 60, [0074], “local directory server 16 receives a cryptographically authenticated authentication notification (a first event data record) from client device 14 (60). Because client device 14 cryptographically authenticates the request, local directory server 16 can understand the contents of the request after decryption only when the request originated from agent 10.”);
retrieving a user identifier from the 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”);
determining whether a 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 file server 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") 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 (the cached conversion table) 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))”); and
in response to a determination that the cached conversion table does include the user identifier, retrieving the username from the 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.”).
18. Regarding claim 18, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further 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.”).
19. Regarding claim 19, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further teaches wherein the event data record corresponds with an event from a distributed file server (Fig 1, [0068], ‘network file system NFS” Examiner Note: the Network File System (NFS) is a widely used distributed file system protocol that functions as a network-based file server, allowing clients to access remote files over a network as if they were stored locally.).
20. Regarding claim 20, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 19 above and further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the computing node to provide a metric associated with the distributed file server based in part on the username ([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.”).
21. Regarding claim 21, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further teaches wherein an analytics system comprises the events processor and an analytics datastore (Figs 1&5).
22. Regarding claim 22, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 21 above and further teaches wherein the analytics datastore comprises the first event data record, the cached conversion table, or combinations thereof (Figs 1&5).
23. Regarding claim 23, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further 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 ([0068], “network file system ("NFS"), and encrypted backup.”).
Network File System (NFS) is a client/server file access protocol, primarily for Unix/Linux, enabling users to view, store, and update files on remote network storage as if they were local. It facilitates centralized storage, reducing the need for local, individual storage. Key versions include NFSv3 and NFSv4, which support file locking and strong security (e.g., Kerberos).
24. Regarding claim 24, Brown teaches the invention as claimed in claim 17 above and further 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]).
CONCLUSION
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Yang et al (US 20210112065 A1)
Maag et al (US 20190205897 A1)
Eruka et al (US 20200050966 A1)
Sugano et al (US 20130191322 A1)
Haumont (US 7372860 B1)
O'Sullivan (US 20030191989 A1)
Zilber et al (US 20220318414 A1)
Bouatou et al (US 20200311232 A1)
Venkataramani (US 20130024925 A1)
Kamel et al (US 20100122332 A1)
Erickson (WO 2008070415 A2)
Link (EP 1782246 B1)
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