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 1-20 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 a series of steps that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a method, 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.
Limitation: “in response to receiving the client request, determining that a distributed check is to be performed for the storage as part of a verification process for the client request”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a Mental Process. The text recites an act of “determining,” which involves observation, evaluation, or determination in a human mind, constituting an abstract idea regarding verification logic.
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. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
receiving a client request through a client path providing access to data stored across multiple tiers of storage
in response to determining that the distributed check does not load additional blocks into memory for performing the distributed check during processing of the client request, performing the distributed check as an inline distributed check as part of the client path used to execute the client request
in response to determining that the distributed check will load an additional block into the memory for performing the distributed check during processing of the client request, deferring the distributed check as a background check decoupled from a frontend that interfaces with the client as part of the client path
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field
The limitation “receiving a client request through a client path providing access to data stored across multiple tiers of storage” describes standard input/output operations on generic computing equipment rather than an improvement to computer function. Accessing data across multiple tiers of storage utilizes pre-existing network and storage architecture. The additional limitations about performing checks inline or as background check do not improve the functioning of a computer. Routing a process to an "inline" path or routing to a "background" check does not enhance the fundamental performance, cooling, or energy efficiency of the computer system itself.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
The limitation “in response to receiving the client request through a client path providing access to data stored across multiple tiers of storage” does not specify a particular machine but describes generic networked storage architecture and client-server interfaces common in computing fields.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
There is no meaningful transformation of physical or abstract information; the “distributed chec”" remains a logical operation performed virtually without tangible improvement to the system. The conditional routing based on memory block loading (does not load additional blocks vs will load an additional block) describes abstract decision logic rather than tangible data transformation.
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). For instance, using an inline path or a background path is merely a choice of configuration to handle memory load conditions that does not integrate the exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The step “receiving a client request” occurs on generic equipment and is merely an input function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. The determination steps about whether to load blocks into memory are mental evaluations without meaningful integration.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
The claim does not apply the idea to a specific field of use or technological environment in a way that makes it patent eligible. The limitation "multiple tiers of storage" and "frontend" refer to standard storage environments.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 combination of receiving requests, determining verification needs, evaluating memory load conditions, and routing checks inline or background uses standard computer functions to execute the abstract idea of verifying storage data. 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 “deferring the distributed check based upon an amount of client latency that would be increased by performing the distributed check as part of the client path used to process the client request.” 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 2 recites “performing the distributed check to verify consistency of a block of data.” Verifying consistency of a block of data is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that 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 “performing the distributed check to verify interdependent metafiles.” Verifying interdependent metafiles is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “performing the distributed check to verify multiple interdependent metafiles used to manage storage of the data across the multiple tiers of the storage.” Verifying multiple interdependent metafiles used to manage storage of the data across the multiple tiers of the storage is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “implementing an incremental checksum to protect against software issues” Implementing an incremental checksum to protect against software issues is recited at a high level of generality 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 5 recites “implementing an incremental consistency check to protect against software logic issues.” Implementing an incremental consistency check to protect against software logic issues is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is similar to claim 1. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8 Claim 9 recites “perform a local check before providing access to the data” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Claim 10 recites “perform an inline distributed check based upon the inline distributed check not adding latency of the client path.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 depends on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Claim 11 recites “perform an inline distributed check based upon the inline distributed check not loaded addition blocks for performing a check.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 depends on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Claim 12 recites “perform inode and volume block accounting” 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 “define a quality of service policy for a background process that performs the distributed check, wherein the quality of service policy is separate and different from a quality of service policy for the client path.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14-16 are similar to claims 5-7. The claims are rejected based on the same reason.
Claims 17-20 are similar to claims 1 and 5-7. The claims are rejected based on the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Section II – Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments that the independent claims have been changed to improve memory management and data processing have been reviewed. However, these arguments are not enough to remove the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant states that the current changes include features that improve how a computer handles memory and data processing to reduce delays. The Examiner's analysis does show that some parts of the claim describe technical steps. However, the claim as a whole fails to explain the actual steps behind the improvement. Under the rules, to prove that an idea improves technology, the claim itself must include the specific steps that create the improvement, rather than just describing a helpful final result. The phrase “a granularity of iron information is changed from block level to an index to allow client operations even while a block is being ironed”—simply describes a goal. The claim states what the system wants to achieve but does not include the actual steps that are required to make that change happen.
Section II – Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
The rejections to claims 1-20 are withdrawn as necessitated by Amendment
Section II – Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b
The rejections to claims 2-5, 14, and 18 are withdrawn as necessitated by Amendment.
Consideration
Claim 1 A method comprising:
receiving a client request through a client path providing access to data stored across multiple tiers of storage;
in response to receiving the client request, determining that a distributed check utilizing an incremental consistency checker (ICC) for verification at an index level instead of a block level is to be performed for the storage as part of a verification process for the client request;
in response to determining that the distributed check does not load additional blocks into memory for performing the distributed check during processing of the client request, performing the distributed check wherein the granularity of iron information is changed from a block level to an index level as an inline distributed check as part of the client path used to execute the client request; and
in response to determining that the distributed check will load an additional block into the memory for performing the distributed check during processing of the client request, deferring the distributed check utilizing an incremental checksum (IC) and incremental consistency checker (ICC) in a background processing state as a background check decoupled from a frontend that interfaces with the client as part of the client path.
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