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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 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
Step 1
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an "attribute information acquisition method" that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a, Prong 1, 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.
Limitation “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.” The claim describes a mathematical relationship by performing a comparison between two numerical values (the log index and the transaction index) to determine a third value (the queue index). Under the 2019 PEG, mathematical relationships, which can be expressed as comparisons of numbers, fall within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Limitation “the queue writing condition comprises that there is a conflict arising from read/write events of an operation file of the directory or a number of concurrent operations in subdirectories under the directory is greater than a number threshold; and the modification information indicates modification of the attribute information of the directory.” The limitation requires comparing "a number of concurrent operations" against a "number threshold." This act of comparing a numerical count to a threshold is a mathematical calculation/relationship
Step 2a, Prong 2
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
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
writing the modification information into the memory queue, and updating the queue index of the memory queue."
MPEP 2106.05(a) (Improvements to Technology):
The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. The recitation of reading from a memory queue and writing to a memory queue are standard data-processing functions. The specification does not describe how these steps result in a technical improvement to the distributed file system beyond performing conventional data management tasks. Merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not constitute an improvement to technology.
MPEP 2106.05(b) (Particular Machine):
The claim does not recite the use of a particular machine. The elements processor, memory queue, and attribute file are generic computer components. There is no recitation of a specific, non-generic machine that is configured in a unique way to perform the mathematical comparisons. A claim must recite the specific arrangement or shape of a machine to move beyond generic implementation.
MPEP 2106.05(c) (Particular Transformation):
The claim does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing. While data is being written and updated, these are standard digital data manipulations within a generic computer environment. There is no transformation of a physical object or a non-generic transformation of digital data into a fundamentally different state.
MPEP 2106.05(e) (Other Meaningful Limitations):
The additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions. The steps of reading, writing, and updating are functional requirements that are merely "extra-solution" to the mathematical comparisons and do not restrict the scope of the mathematical concepts in a way that avoids preemption.
MPEP 2106.05(g) (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity):
The limitations, such as "writing the modification information into the memory queue," are insignificant extra-solution activities. These are conventional, well-understood, and routine data-handling tasks that do not add an inventive concept to the mathematical determination of indices.
MPEP 2106.05(h) (Field of Use and Technological Environment):
The claim does not merely link the exception to a particular technological environment. While it specifies a "distributed file system," this is a general technological field of use and does not provide a specific, non-generic implementation that integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, the claim is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional elements, when examined individually and as an ordered combination, fail to provide an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the recited mathematical concepts. The elements of reading from a memory queue, determining information from an attribute file, and writing modification information are all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer-implemented data management. These limitations serve as generic instructions to implement the abstract mathematical comparisons on a computer. Because the combination of these steps only utilizes standard computer functions—specifically, managing data in a queue—to execute the abstract mathematical logic of comparing indices and thresholds, the claim fails to provide the "inventive concept" required to transform the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 2 recites “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 of the modification information of the queue tail of the memory queue as the queue index.” This limitation specifies a way of identifying a data point (the tail of a queue). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “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.” This limitation recites a data manipulation and calculation process (merging and summarizing data). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.” This limitation simply defines a logical branch based on a mathematical comparison (greater than or equal to). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.” This claim combines the routine method of accessing a queue tail (Claim 2) with a standard logical branch (Claim 4). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recite “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.” This claim combines standard data merging/summarizing with a standard logical branch. The combination does not create a unique or non-abstract workflow. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.” This limitation recites a "polling loop" (waiting and checking a condition). This is a fundamental mental process and a standard software pattern. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state... in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” This claim combines the routine task of accessing a queue tail with the routine task of a polling loop. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state; ... in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” This claim combines data merging (Claim 3) with a polling loop (Claim 7). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “in a case that the queue index is less than the transaction index, entering a waiting state;... in a case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, outputting the attribute information according to the met attribute information acquisition condition.” This claim combines a standard logical branch (Claim 4) with a standard polling loop (Claim 7). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites “wherein in the case that the attribute information acquisition condition is met, the outputting of the attribute information... comprises: in a case that the log index of the directory is greater than or equal to the transaction index... acquiring the attribute information from the attribute file... in a case that the log index... is less than the transaction index... acquiring the attribute information from the memory queue... and the attribute file.” This limitation provides more granular detail for the decision-making logic (if-else branches based on indices). The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the method further comprises: 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.” Adding a "timeout" and an "error alert" is considered "extra-solution activity." The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the method further comprises: 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.” This claim combines the routine tasks of queue management, polling, and error-alerting. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 and 20 are similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons
Claims 17 and 18 Provide a Technical Improvement
When the logical comparisons and index tracking of the independent claim are combined with the specific step sequence of dependent Claims 17 and 18, the claimed method shifts away from an abstract mathematical concept.
Claims 17 and 18 dictates that the computer is structurally constrained to store modification information in a temporary memory queue, actively monitor its own operating environment, and wait until it determines that a specific process of the directory is in an idle state. Only upon reaching this idle state, processor sets a read-write lock on the non-volatile attribute file, reads the file, modifies it, writes the modified information back to the file, and then explicitly unlocks it.
This multi-step sequence alters the internal functioning of the computer system itself. Using a memory queue to hold updates and then waiting for an idle state to batch-process those updates under a controlled read-write lock, the invention drastically minimizes transaction conflict bottlenecks.
Suggestion
Claim 1
An attribute information acquisition method for a directory of a distributed file system, the method being implemented by a processor in the distributed file system and 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;
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, the queue writing condition comprises that there is a conflict arising from read/write events of an operation file of the directory or a number of concurrent operations in subdirectories under the directory is greater than a number threshold; 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; and
in a case of 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 by:
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; and
unlocking the read-write lock of the attribute file of the directory.
Response to Arguments
Pg. 9-10
Applicant argues that “… Moreover, based on the technical solution of amended claim 1, such as "determining, in a case that a queue writing condition is met, modification in formation of the directory to be written into the memory queue, where the queue writing condition comprises that there is a conflict arising from read/write events of an operation file of the directory or a number of concurrent operations in subdirectories under the directory is greater than a number threshold," one skilled in the art would recognize that when the queue writing condition is met, it means that the number of operations on the directory is large, and there are many conflicts when updating the attributes of the directory. In order to avoid conflicts generated in the process of updating the attributes of the directory, the modification information may be generated according to the operation instruction and written into the queue, which cannot be memorized and processed by a human.
Furthermore, with respect to the technical solution to be solved by the present application, which "improve the operation performance in the same directory and reduce transaction conflicts by writing the modification information of attributes into the memory queue" (see paragraph [0016] of the present application), it can be seen that the method is applied to big data and a distributed file system in computer technologies, so as to achieve an effect of fast and accurately acquiring attribute information of the directory in the distributed file system (see paragraph [0017]). Thus, the technical solution of amended claim 1 focuses on the management of distributed file systems for online big data sharing by a large number of users.
Thus, the technical solution of amended claim 1 cannot be performed in the human mind, because it is implemented by hardware, it involves big data and a distributed file system, and a calculation complexity of which is beyond the capability of human mind based on numerous and changeable data…”
The Applicant argues that because "big data" involves millions of fast-moving pieces of information, a human could never process this in their head. However, making a process faster or handling a massive amount of data does not automatically make an idea patentable. At its core, the “queue writing condition” simply counts the number of operations and checks if that count is higher than a set threshold number. A human can easily count events and compare them to a target number using a pencil and paper. Just because a computer does this tracking on a massive scale does not change the fact that the underlying step is just a basic logical comparison.
The Applicant also points out that the method helps prevent data conflicts and speeds up directory access. The claim 1 does not change or improve the hardware architecture or the fundamental file system. Instead, it just uses standard logic (comparing numbers and shifting data to a queue) on a standard, generic processor. Achieving a good result by running basic math on a regular computer is not enough to get a patent.
The Applicant also argues that this invention belongs strictly in the field of distributed file systems and big data hardware. But simply limiting an abstract mathematical idea to a specific technical environment does not make it eligible. The claim relies entirely on generic computer components - like a standard "processor," "memory queue," and "attribute files." These standard generic computer components are used to execute basic logical steps. Because there is not a unique, unconventional change to how the file system itself operates, it remains a regular computer running regular math.
Pg. 11-12
Applicant argues “… Specifically, based on the technical solution recited in amended claim 1, the additional technical features, for example "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, the queue writing condition comprises that there is a conflict arising from read/write events of an operation file of the directory or a number of concurrent operations in subdirectories under the directory is greater than a number threshold; 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" integrate the alleged abstract idea into the practical application of big data and a distributed file system in computer technologies. The method as defined in amended claim 1 achieves an effect of fast and accurately acquiring attribute information of the directory in the distributed file system.
Further, as recited in amended claim 1, the processor in the distributed file system can generate modification information of the directory to be written in the memory queue according to the operation instruction of a user when there is a conflict arising from read/write events of an operation file of the directory or a number of concurrent operations in subdirectories under the directory is greater than a number threshold, and write the modification information into the queue, and update the queue index of the memory queue. And, when there are still some operations for the directory that have not finished the update of the directory (i.e., when the log index of the directory indicated by the acquisition instruction is less than the transaction index of the directory), it determines the queue index in the memory queue corresponding to the directory to determine the attribute information of the directory…”
The Applicant contends that the specific "queue writing condition" (detecting conflicts or high concurrency) and the subsequent logic of using a memory queue to manage indices (log, transaction, and queue indices) integrate the abstract mathematical and logical concepts into a practical application that achieves a technical effect (fast and accurate data acquisition in a distributed file system).
The Applicant argues that the method achieves a "fast and accurately acquiring attribute information" and "improves operation performance." The mere achievement of a technical result-such as improved speed, accuracy, or efficiency-is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible if the means used to achieve that result are itself an abstract idea (i.e., logical comparison - comparing a count to a threshold, comparing indices, a data management procedure - writing to a queue). An abstract idea used to achieve a desired result is still an abstract idea.
The Applicant argues that the “queue writing condition” is a technical feature that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, upon examination, this "condition" is a standard "if-then" logical branch based on mathematical values. It does not provide a "particular machine" or a "particular transformation" of data. Because this condition is a mathematical/logical comparison, it remains within the scope of the judicial exception.
The Applicant argues that the complex relationship between the log index, transaction index, and queue index constitutes a technical solution. The Examiner finds that these limitations are directed to the mathematical relationship between different counters (indices). They are instructions to perform mathematical calculations on a generic processor. The claim's attempt to integrate these mathematical steps by applying them to the specific field of "big data and distributed file systems" is merely a "field of use" limitation, which the 2019 PEG states is insufficient to move a claim from the "abstract idea" category to "eligible."
Pg. 12
Applicant argues that “… Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter because it recites a technical solution in providing a useful result to address a technical problem, which satisfies the "significantly more" requirement.
At least for the reasons provided above, amended claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Dependent claims 2-13, 17, and 18 are also eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The subject matter of independent claims 19 and 20 corresponds to that of amended claim 1, therefore, claims 19 and 20 are also eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 for at least the same reasons.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101…”
The Applicant argues that because the claim solves a technical problem, it is patent-eligible. However, the “solution” must be something more than an abstract idea. In this claim, the solution is a series of mathematical and logical steps: comparing numbers (indices) and making decisions based on those numbers.
Even though these steps solve a problem in a distributed file system, they are still just mathematical/logical rules. Using a mathematical rule to solve a technical problem does not change the nature of the rule.
The Applicant argues that the claim meets the "significantly more" requirement because it describes a technical solution. To meet the "significantly more" requirement (Step 2B), the claim must contain an "inventive concept." The elements in the claim - such as a processor, a memory queue, and a file system - are all standard, routine, and well-understood parts of a computer system. Using these standard parts to carry out mathematical comparisons is a routine way of using a computer. These elements do not add anything "significantly more" to the abstract mathematical concept; they are simply the standard tools used to execute the math.
Because Claim 1 is ineligible, the dependent claims are also ineligible. Furthermore, because claims 19 and 20 are based on the same subject matter as Claim 1, they are also ineligible.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
U.S. Pub 2026/0244595 A1 – Ben Dayan discloses a plurality of computing devices are communicatively coupled to each other via a network, and each of the plurality of computing devices is operably coupled to one or more of a plurality of storage devices. A plurality of failure resilient address spaces are distributed across the plurality of storage devices such that each of the plurality of failure resilient address spaces spans a plurality of the storage devices. The plurality of computing devices maintains metadata that maps each failure resilient address space to one of the plurality of computing devices. The metadata is grouped into buckets. Each bucket is stored in the backend of a computing device. Data may be migrated from an external file system to the plurality of storage devices using inode stubs to represent directories and files of the external file system. As the contents of the external file system are copied, the inode stubs are replaced with real inodes.
U.S. Pub Patent 12619582 - Rothschilds discloses Embodiments manage file system transaction dependencies in distributed file systems. A transaction log containing log entries is obtained, where each log entry represents a transaction with file system operations, execution times, and associated inodes. Dependency graphs are constructed based on shared inode references between log entries. Each inode stores the last modified transaction log key, which serves as a root into the dependency graph of all dependent transactions. Depth-first search traversal identifies leaf log entries ready for application. These leaf entries are communicated to target file systems for replay. Independent subgraphs are identified and processed in parallel to maximize throughput. In-flight windows with bounded capacity prevent deadlock conditions by ensuring dependencies fit within available buffer space. Log entries from multiple subgraphs may be combined into single communication messages to optimize network efficiency across geographically distributed file system infrastructure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights