DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to claims 1-18 filed April 02, 2025 for examination. Claims 1-18 are being examined and are pending.
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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment to the specification and claims’, filed April 02, 2025 has been acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 02, 2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 02, 2025 have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
(I) Claims 1-3, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 1 recites “A data access system comprising…” but fails to positively recite any structural components, hardware features, or functional elements that are configured to perform. MPEP 2106.03 (I) dictates the Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter where a machine (also known as a “device”) must be a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This category “includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result.” Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)). As the courts’ definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (“For all categories except process claims, the eligible subject matter must exist in some physical or tangible form.”). Claim further recites “a client device, a server device, transmits to a client device…deletes…re-stores…” but fails to provide the functional elements (hardware/machine components) necessary for “a system” to perform such functions. Both client device and server device can be interpreted as software only under broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, claim 1 fails to fall into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-3, 11-18, which depends upon the device as claimed in claim 4, fails to positively recite any structural components, hardware features, or functional elements that would qualify as statutory subject matter. Therefore, claims 2-3, 11-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
(II) Claims 4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 7 recites “A server device, comprising…” but fails to positively recite any structural components, hardware features, or functional elements that are configured to perform. MPEP 2106.03 (I) dictates the Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter where a machine (also known as a “device”) must be a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This category “includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result.” Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)). As the courts’ definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (“For all categories except process claims, the eligible subject matter must exist in some physical or tangible form.”). Claim further recites “transmitting to a client device…deleting…re-storing…” but fails to provide the functional elements (hardware/machine components) necessary for “a server device” to perform such functions. Therefore, claim 4 fails to fall into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 7-10, which depends upon the device as claimed in claim 4, fails to positively recite any structural components, hardware features, or functional elements that would qualify as statutory subject matter. Therefore, claims 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
(III) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the preamble of the claims recites “A program for causing a computer to execute…” which clearly directed to program per se. Further, since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process or product claim. Claim does not recite that computer program embodied in a computer-readable non-transitory tangible medium. A computer program without a non-transitory computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program's functionality directed towards non-statutory functional descriptive material, which is descriptive material per se. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. As noted in the MPEP, functional descriptive material is not patentable when claimed as descriptive material per se. MPEP § 2106.01.
The phrase “for causing a computer to execute…” is an intended use statement and doesn’t make the claim statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(I) Independent claims 1, 4-6 recite, “…all of second data stored in a second array capable of…” The meaning of phrase ‘capable of’ or ‘suitable for’ is indefinite. In many cases, patents that use this sort of language do not clearly indicate which meaning is intended. In such cases as well, it would be beneficial to require the applicant to commit to one position or another because it may significantly impact the scope of the applicant’s claims and the manner in which they relate to potential accused products and the prior art.
(II) Claims recite, “re-stores data stored in the second array in the first array when the number of pieces…” Claim language is unclear.
(III) Claims recite “the server device: transmits, to the client device, first data of any of N pieces of data stored in a first array in an initial state, and transmits, to the client device, all of second data stored in a second array capable of storing m pieces of data, m being less than N;” Other independent claims 4-6 recite similar claim limitations. It is unclear where the data is being stored. Data is being stored in first/second array as claimed but unclear which device is storing data.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Prior art CN 114756409 A (Zhou et al.) disclosed, “the application is provided with a first array and a second array, respectively is used for recording the power-on state and the power-off state of the server. The first array stores the second data with the first preset length in the default state, the second array stores the first data with the second preset length in the default state. When the server current on-off state is starting state, writing a first data in the first array, and removing a second data; when the server current on-off state is off state, writing a second data in the second array, and removing a first data.”
US 20110066666 A1 (Takaoka et al.) disclosed the storage system of the present invention includes a first file server having a first storage area, a second file server which is coupled to the first file server and which includes a second storage area, and one or more computers coupled to the first and second file servers. Furthermore, the computer splits a data array stored in one file into one or more fragment data arrays including a first fragment data array; the first file server stores a first fragment file storing the first fragment data array in the first storage area; the computer splits a data array stored in a second file into one or more fragment data arrays including a second fragment data array; and the second file server stores a second fragment file storing the second fragment data array in the second storage area; and the first file server, if the first fragment data array matches the second fragment data array, deletes the first fragment data array, and changes the first fragment file to a stub that indicates the second fragment data array.
US 7,257,674 B2 (Kobayashi et al.) disclosed A disk storage server for providing a storage area of a storage device to a client, the disk storage server comprising: a storage device group composed of multiple storage devices, wherein the multiple storage devices are divided into a first array that is assigned to a first client and a second array that is assigned to a second client; and a data processing unit for dividing a write data in a write request so that concatenating the divided data is able to restore the original information, and for writing the data so that said plural storage devices storing the write data of each client partly overlap with each other, and wherein a quantity of shared storage devices, that are shared between the first and second clients, is equal to n-(t+1), wherein n is a total number of storage devices assigned to both the first and second clients, and wherein t is a total number of storage devices that can fail within a storage device array while still allowing data in the storage device array to be restored, wherein said data processing unit changes a method for dividing the write data for each client.
CN 106301900 A (Chen et al) disclosed the first storage device may be a first array, the first array can be found with the communication link to the second array (i.e., second storage device) generating an arbitration request information, the arbitration request information for request over the host service. the arbitration request message further comprises a reservation instruction information, the reservation instruction information indicating the arbitration server to forbid the second array to register, arbitration server can according to the locally stored registration information of the first array, and currently no other array connecting host service determines the first array is an array of connecting host service, and sending the indication message to the first array, the first array arbitration win arbitration server further can be reserved according to the indication information of the first array reserved registration information modification in the arbitration server is reservation information. arbitration server can reject arbitration request according to the reserved information of the second array, the registration request or delete the reservation information of the request, so as to ensure that the first array is unique over the host service of device and avoids multiple arrays may occur at the same time takes over the host service caused by asynchronous data, The method for equipment arbitration of the invention further can save signaling overhead.
Independent claim 1 identifies the following combination of features:
the server device:
transmits, to the client device, first data of any of N pieces of data stored in a first array in an initial state, and transmits, to the client device, all of second data stored in a second array capable of storing m pieces of data, m being less than N;
deletes, from the first array, the first data transmitted to the client device by the transmission unit, and stores the first data in the second array; and
re-stores data stored in the second array in the first array when the number of pieces of the second data stored in the second array is m or more, and
the client device includes:
probabilistically selects any data from among the first data and pieces of the second data received from the server device.
Other independent claims 4-6 although different, further recite similar limitations to those found in claim 1.
None of the prior arts taken alone anticipate the claimed invention. The prior arts also do not provide sufficient motivation to be combined and to be modified in such a way as to render obvious the above combination of claimed features within the context of the claimed invention as a whole without the usage of impermissible hindsight reasoning. Therefore, the examiner found the invention as claimed to be allowable and allowed it to be patented.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 7-18 are also allowed due to their dependency on independent allowable claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,324,807 B1: the system 100 represents a cloud computing system that includes a first client 102, a second client 104, and a third client 106; and a server 108 and a storage array 110 that may be provided by a hosting company. The storage array 110 includes a first array disk 112 and a second array disk 114. Although FIG. 1 depicts the first client 102 as the laptop computer 102, the second client 104 as the personal computer 104, and the third client 106 as the server 106, any of the clients 102-106 may be any type of computer, such as the hardware device 400 depicted in FIG. 4 and described below. Any of the clients 102-106 may be a computer capable of hosting multiple virtual machines, such as the client 106 that includes a first local disk 120 and a second local disk 122. Although FIG. 1 depicts the local disks 120-122 as internal to the client 106, any of the local disks 120-122 can be external to the client 106, and may be any combination of hard disks 120-122 and/or virtual disks 120-122. The clients 102-106, the server 108, and the storage array 110 communicate via a network 124. Since the server 108 includes a backup/restore application 126, the server 108 may be referred to as the backup server 108. Although following paragraphs describe EMC Corporation's Avamar® backup/restore application and EMC Corporation's NetWorker® backup/restore application as examples of the backup/restore application 126, the backup/restore application 126 may be any other backup/restore application which provides the backup/restore functionalities described in the Background section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWNCHOY RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7471. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30A-5P ET.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/Shawnchoy Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
