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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 “wherein the determining the queue index in the memory queue corresponding to the directory comprises: acquiring an index of modification information of a queue tail of the memory queue corresponding to the directory, and taking the index as the queue index”
It is unclear the term “the index” refers to transaction index, log index, and queue index. It seems that “taking the index of modification information of a queue tail of the memory queue as the queue index” is more appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
An attribute information acquisition method for a directory of a distributed file system, comprising:
in response to an acquisition instruction, in case of determining that a log index of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction is less than a transaction index of the directory, determining a queue index in a memory queue corresponding to the directory; wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory;
in a case that the queue index is greater than or equal to the transaction index, reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue; and determining the attribute information of the directory according to the attribute modification information and an attribute file of the directory;
wherein the log index indicates update times for updating the directory, and the transaction index indicates operation times for an operation on the directory; and the memory queue stores the attribute modification information of the directory, and the queue index indicates operation times of the memory queue.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including steps a) - c). Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories 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.
Step a) in response to an acquisition instruction, in case of determining that a log index of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction is less than a transaction index of the directory, determining a queue index in a memory queue corresponding to the directory; wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory. Comparing log index is less than a transaction index and determining a queue index corresponding to the directory are nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
Step b) in a case that the queue index is greater than or equal to the transaction index, reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue; and determining the attribute information of the directory according to the attribute modification information and an attribute file of the directory. Comparing the queue index is greater than the transaction index and determining the attribute information according to the attribute modification information and an attribute file of the directory are nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps a and b fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (b) - (f) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (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).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
“wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory”; “reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue”; and “wherein the log index indicates update times for updating the directory, and the transaction index indicates operation times for an operation on the directory; and the memory queue stores the attribute modification information of the directory, and the queue index indicates operation times of the memory queue”
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitations “wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory” [Wingdings font/0xF3] pre-solution activities; “reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue” [Wingdings font/0xF3] obtaining data; and “wherein the log index indicates update times for updating the directory, and the transaction index indicates operation times for an operation on the directory; and the memory queue stores the attribute modification information of the directory, and the queue index indicates operation times of the memory queue” [Wingdings font/0xF3] pre-solution activities. These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “distributed file system”, “acquisition instruction”, “the directory”, “memory queue”, “attribute information”, “attribute modification information”, “attribute file”, “update times”, and “operation times”. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to obtaining data and comparing data (i.e., greater than or less than). The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations “wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory” [Wingdings font/0xF3] pre-solution activities; “reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue” [Wingdings font/0xF3] obtaining data; and “wherein the log index indicates update times for updating the directory, and the transaction index indicates operation times for an operation on the directory; and the memory queue stores the attribute modification information of the directory, and the queue index indicates operation times of the memory queue” [Wingdings font/0xF3] pre-solution activities are not meaningful limitations because they are pre solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations “wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory” [Wingdings font/0xF3] pre-solution activities; “reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue” [Wingdings font/0xF3] obtaining data; and “wherein the log index indicates update times for updating the directory, and the transaction index indicates operation times for an operation on the directory; and the memory queue stores the attribute modification information of the directory, and the queue index indicates operation times of the memory queue” [Wingdings font/0xF3] pre-solution activities are not meaningful limitations because they are pre solution activities.
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Distributed file system”, “acquisition instruction”, “the directory”, “memory queue”, “attribute information”, “attribute modification information”, “attribute file”, “update times”, and “operation times” limitations are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations “wherein the acquisition instruction indicates to acquire attribute information of the directory”; “reading attribute modification information of the directory from the memory queue”; and “wherein the log index indicates update times for updating the directory, and the transaction index indicates operation times for an operation on the directory; and the memory queue stores the attribute modification information of the directory, and the queue index indicates operation times of the memory queue” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because collecting data, ranking collected data, and displaying the results are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “wherein the determining the queue index in the memory queue corresponding to the directory comprises: acquiring an index of modification information of a queue tail of the memory queue corresponding to the directory, and taking the index as the queue index.” Obtaining and setting data (e.g., acquiring an index… and taking the index as queue index) is pre-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “wherein the determining the attribute information of the directory according to the attribute modification information and the attribute file of the directory comprises: merging the attribute modification information to obtain summary information; merging the summary information with attribute information in the attribute file of the directory to obtain a final attribute information of the directory. Combining data does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “in case of determining that the log index of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction is greater than or equal to the transaction index of the directory, acquiring the attribute information from the attribute file of the directory. Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Claim 5 recites “in case of determining that the log index of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction is greater than or equal to the transaction index of the directory, acquiring the attribute information from the attribute file of the directory.” Comparing data greater than or less than another data and acquiring data are observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and acquiring data is pre-post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Claim 6 recites “in case of determining that the log index of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction is greater than or equal to the transaction index of the directory, acquiring the attribute information from the attribute file of the directory.” Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and acquiring data is pre-post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state; wherein the waiting state represents that the modification information in the memory queue has been read by a process, but not written into the attribute file; in the waiting state, periodically judging whether an attribute information acquisition condition is met; wherein the attribute information acquisition condition represents a condition for exiting the waiting state and realizing acquisition of the attribute information of the directory; in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” Comparing/judging data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and acquiring data is pre-post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 depends on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Claim 8 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state; wherein the waiting state represents that the modification information in the memory queue has been read by a process, but not written into the attribute file; in the waiting state, periodically judging whether an attribute information acquisition condition is met; wherein the attribute information acquisition condition represents a condition for exiting the waiting state and realizing acquisition of the attribute information of the directory; in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” Comparing/judging data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and outputting data is post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 depends on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Claim 9 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state; wherein the waiting state represents that the modification information in the memory queue has been read by a process, but not written into the attribute file; in the waiting state, periodically judging whether an attribute information acquisition condition is met; wherein the attribute information acquisition condition represents a condition for exiting the waiting state and realizing acquisition of the attribute information of the directory; in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and outputting data is post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Claim 10 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state; wherein the waiting state represents that the modification information in the memory queue has been read by a process, but not written into the attribute file; in the waiting state, periodically judging whether an attribute information acquisition condition is met; wherein the attribute information acquisition condition represents a condition for exiting the waiting state and realizing acquisition of the attribute information of the directory; in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and outputting data is post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 depends on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Claim 11 recites “wherein in the case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, the outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition comprises: in a case that the log index of the directory is greater than or equal to the transaction index of the directory, acquiring the attribute information from the attribute file of the directory; in a case that the log index of the directory is less than the transaction index of the directory and the queue index of the directory is greater than or equal to the transaction index of the directory, acquiring the attribute information from the memory queue of the directory and the attribute file of the directory.” Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and outputting data is post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 depends on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Claim 11 recites “in a case that a duration of the waiting state is greater than a preset duration threshold, generating an acquisition exception alert, wherein the acquisition exception alert represents a failure of acquiring the attribute information of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction.” Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and generating alert is post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 depends on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Claim 13 recites “in a case that a duration of the waiting state is greater than a preset duration threshold, generating an acquisition exception alert, wherein the acquisition exception alert represents a failure of acquiring the attribute information of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction. Comparing data greater than or less than another data is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and generating alert is post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 14 recites “in response to an operation instruction for the directory, determining, in a case that a queue writing condition is met, modification information of the directory to be written into the memory queue; wherein the operation instruction indicates to operate the directory; the queue writing condition indicates a condition that the modification information needs to be generated according to the operation instruction of the directory and written into the memory queue; and the modification information indicates modification of the attribute information of the directory; writing the modification information into the memory queue, and updating the queue index of the memory queue. Determining is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 depends on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Claim 15 recites “in response to an operation instruction for the directory, determining, in a case that a queue writing condition is met, modification information of the directory to be written into the memory queue; wherein the operation instruction indicates to operate the directory; the queue writing condition indicates a condition that the modification information needs to be generated according to the operation instruction of the directory and written into the memory queue; and the modification information indicates modification of the attribute information of the directory; writing the modification information into the memory queue, and updating the queue index of the memory queue.” Determining is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 depends on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Claim 16 recites “in response to an operation instruction for the directory, determining, in a case that a queue writing condition is met, modification information of the directory to be written into the memory queue; wherein the operation instruction indicates to operate the directory; the queue writing condition indicates a condition that the modification information needs to be generated according to the operation instruction of the directory and written into the memory queue; and the modification information indicates modification of the attribute information of the directory; writing the modification information into the memory queue, and updating the queue index of the memory queue. Determining is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and writing, and updating are post solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 depends on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Claim 17 recites “in a case that determining that a process of the directory is in an idle state, calling the process of the directory, reading modification information of the directory in the memory queue, and updating the read modification information to the directory.” Determining is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) and calling the process, reading and updating information are generic command instructions of computer. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17 and includes all the limitations of claim 17. Claim 18 recites “wherein the updating the read modification information to the directory comprises: setting a read-write lock on the attribute file of the directory; reading the attribute information of the directory from the attribute file of the directory; modifying the attribute information according to the modification information to obtain modified attribute information; writing the modified attribute information into the attribute file of the directory; unlocking the read-write lock of the attribute file of the directory. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19-20 are similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154