Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present applicati7410on 19/151,419, filed on 11/18/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2024/076968 filed on 02/08/2024
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4,7-17,21-25, canceled 5-6,18-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 10/13/2025 & 7/28/2025
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 7/28/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under
35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA
application # 202310140582.2 filed on 02/21/2023.
Specification
At para 01 (as filed 7/28/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application #, applicant is hereby required to update the status of the US application(s) in response to this office action.
in the specification, at para 001 (as filed 7/28/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application # Examiner notes that incorporation by reference of an application in a printed United States patent constitutes a special circumstance under 35 U.S.C. § 122 warranting that access of the original disclosure of the application be granted. The incorporation by reference will be interpreted as a waiver of confidentiality of only the original disclosure as filed, and not the entire application file, In re Gallo, 231 USPQ 496 (Comm'r Pat. 1986). If Applicant objects to access to the entire application file, two copies of the information incorporated by reference must be submitted along with the objection. Failure to provide the material within the period provided will result in the entire application (including prosecution) being made available to petitioner. The Office will not attempt to separate the noted materials from the remainder of the application. Compare In re Marsh Engineering Co., 1913 C.D. 183 (Comm'r Pat. 1913).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claim 2 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
As to claim 2. (Previously Presented), further elaborates The data migration method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving a data transmission request, which is sent by a user-mode application program, comprises:
receiving, by means of a virtual file system interface, the data transmission request, which is sent by the user-mode application program
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 2:
In view of three-prong analysis in MPEP 2181, the claim limitation
“receiving, by means of a virtual file system interface, the data transmission request, which is sent by the user-mode application program”
Prong A is met because: the claim element recites “receiving, by means of a virtual file system interface………..”, the specification recites receiving means may be programming insructions running on a microprocessor or generic computer (hardware or software). No specific definition for the term receiving, by means is provided. The term “unit” is not a sufficiently definite name of structure in this art.
Prong B is met because: the generic placeholder (receiving by means…..) is modified by functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: task information and/or data of the model and like
Prong C is met because claim 2 element(s) is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function, and the specification (page 10-18, fig 1-2) does not provide adequate structure for performing the entire claimed function and/or fails to clearly link the structure to the function.
Claims 24-25 depend from claim 2 is rejected in the analysis of claim 2, and claims 24-25 are rejected on that basis.
35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claim 2 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Claim 2:
“receiving, by means of a virtual file system interface, the data transmission request, which is sent by the user-mode application program”
In view of specification page 10-18, fig 1-2 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph
Claims 24-25 depend from claim 2 is rejected in the analysis of claim 2, and claims 24-25 are rejected on that basis.
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.
Claims 1-4,7-17,21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-4,7-17,21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1. (Previously Presented) A data migration method, comprising:
receiving a data transmission request, which is sent by a user-mode application program;
dividing read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into a plurality of data sub-segments; and
performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads, wherein the plurality of data migration threads are in a one-to-one correspondence with the data sub-segments, and the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads comprises:
creating a plurality of corresponding data migration tasks based on address information of the plurality of data sub-segments; and
executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache, wherein the address information of the plurality of data sub-segments comprises a memory management unit corresponding to the user-mode application program, and lengths, source addresses and destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of receiving, dividing data, migration data, creating data migration, using both user mode, kernel mode
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of receiving, dividing data, migration data, creating data migration, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 1, 4, 7, page 9, line 14-20, page 10, page 15, line 14-22, page 16-1, page 32-36 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 1, 4, 7, page 9, line 14-20, page 10, page 15, line 14-22, page 16-1, page 32-36 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
As to claim 2. (Previously Presented), further elaborates The data migration method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving a data transmission request, which is sent by a user-mode application program, comprises:
receiving, by means of a virtual file system interface, the data transmission request, which is sent by the user-mode application program”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 3. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “wherein before the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads, the data migration method further comprises:
creating a data migration thread pool, wherein the data migration thread pool comprises the plurality of data migration threads”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 4. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “wherein the dividing read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into a plurality of data sub-segments comprises:
dividing the read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into the plurality of data sub-segments in order based on a preset length”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5. - 6. (Cancelled)
As to claim 7. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “wherein the executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of 3data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache comprises:
switching the plurality of data migration threads into a user-mode address space based on the memory management unit corresponding to the user-mode application program; and
performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache by using the plurality of data migration threads based on the source addresses and the destination addresses of the plurality of data sub- segments”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 8. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “wherein before the creating a plurality of corresponding data migration tasks based on address information of the plurality of data sub-segments, the data migration method further comprises:
dividing a cache of the user-mode application program into a plurality of first segments based on a preset length, and determining the source addresses of the plurality of data sub- segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of first segments; and
dividing the kernel-mode cache into a plurality of second segments based on the preset length, and determining the destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of second segments”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 9. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 8, further elaborates “wherein the executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache comprises:
executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to migrate the plurality of data sub-segments from the user-mode application program to the kernel-mode cache”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 10. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “wherein before the creating a plurality of corresponding data migration tasks based on address information of the plurality of data sub-segments, the data migration method further comprises:
dividing the kernel-mode cache into a plurality of second segments based on a preset length, and determining the source addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of second segments; and
dividing a cache of the user-mode application program into a plurality of first segments based on the preset length, and determining the destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of first segments”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 11. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 10, further elaborates “wherein the executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache comprises:
executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to migrate the plurality of data sub-segments from the kernel-mode cache to the user-mode application program”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 12. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates , “wherein after the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads, the data migration method further comprises:
dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes; and
performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads, wherein the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of data stripes”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 13. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 12, further elaborates “wherein before the performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads, the data migration method further comprises: creating an erasure coding redundant computation thread pool, wherein the erasure coding redundant computation thread pool comprises the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 14. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 12, further elaborates “wherein the dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes comprises:
dividing the migrated data into the plurality of data stripes in order based on a preset length”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 15. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 12, further elaborates “wherein the performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes inn parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads comprises:
creating a plurality of corresponding erasure coding redundant computation tasks based on input cache addresses and output cache addresses of the plurality of data strips; and
performing the erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 16. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 12, further elaborates “wherein before the dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes, the data migration method further comprises:
determining whether all of the plurality of data migration threads are completed; and
in response to all of the plurality of data migration threads being completed, performing the dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 17. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 12, further elaborates , “wherein after the performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads, the data migration method further comprises:
determining whether all of the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads are completed; and
in response to all of the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads being completed, sending data obtained after the erasure coding redundant computation to a storage system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 18. - 20. (Cancelled)
As to Claim 21. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “ wherein an executive body of the method is a kernel-mode client”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 22. (Currently Amended) The data migration method according to claim 21, further elaborates “wherein the kernel-mode client comprises a distributed storage client, and the distributed storage client is deployed in a user mode of an Operating System (OS) of a client host to achieve interconnection and access from the client host to a distributed storage system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 23. (Previously Presented) The data migration method according to claim 1, further elaborates “wherein the executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache comprises:
switching each data migration thread of the plurality of data migration threads to a Memory Management Unit (MMU) of a designated user-mode process according to a corresponding one of the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks; and
executing data migration instructions according to the source addresses and the destination addresses”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 24. (New) The data migration method according to claim 2, further elaborates “wherein before the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads, the data migration method further comprises:
creating a data migration thread pool, wherein the data migration thread pool comprises the plurality of data migration threads”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 25. (New) The data migration method according to claim 2, further elaborates “wherein the dividing read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into a plurality of data sub-segments comprises:
dividing the read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into the plurality of data sub-segments in order based on a preset length”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4,7-17,21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driesen et al., (hereafter Driesen), US Pub. No. 2018/0052620 published Feb 2018 in view of Sankaran et al., (hereafter Sankaran), US Pub. No. 2019/0347125 published Nov 2019
As to Claim 1 (Previously Presented) Driesen teaches a system which including “a data migration method, comprising: (Driesen : Abstract, fig 1 – Driesen teaches database migration);
PNG
media_image1.png
100
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“receiving a data transmission request, which is sent by a user-mode application program” (Driesen : fig 1, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079 – Driesen teaches both hardware and software particularly software architecture element 1502 and operating system 1514 manage hardware resources providing user space application for example software programs runs on the computer’s hardware, memory and system resources corresponds to user-mode application especially forming data migration including segmented data is identical to instant specification page 5, line 9-12);
PNG
media_image2.png
237
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into a plurality of data sub-segments” (Driesen ;0054-0055, fig 5 - Driesen teaches defining database schema in migration from source to a target database executed by the database management particularly database management request for both read or write purpose is ready assigned to the respective data segments, i.e., data readiness for read-write may execute the database request) and
“performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads” (Driesen :fig 1, 0028-0029, fig 15, 0078-0079 – Driesen teaches data migration between source and target database executing the specific tasks for example data migration segmented data between tables as detailed in 0028-0029 in support of operating system that supports both user-mode programs and kernel mode reasonable in memory management i.e, data storage within the kernel space, as such user mode runs regular application in accessing to system resources); “wherein the plurality of data migration threads are in a one-to-one correspondence with the data sub-segments (Driesen : fig 1, 0032-0033, 0038-0039 – Driesen teaches data migration subsystems, segmenting parameters determines the one-to-one executing the migration between source and target schema);, and the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads comprises” (Driesen: fig 1-3, fig 15, 0078-0079 – Driesen teaches data migration between source and target database executing the specific tasks for example data migration segmented data between tables as detailed in 0028-0029 in support of operating system that supports both user-mode programs and kernel mode reasonable in memory management i.e, data storage within the kernel space, as such user mode runs regular application in accessing to system resources) :
creating a plurality of corresponding data migration tasks based on address information of the plurality of data sub-segments; and
“executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub- segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache” (Driesen : fig 1-2, fig 15, 0032-0033,0037-0038, fig 15, 0077-0079), wherein the address information of the plurality of data sub-segments comprises a memory management unit corresponding to the user-mode application program, and lengths, source addresses and destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments” (Driesen : fig 15, 0078-0079 – Driesen teaches both hardware and software supporting kernel element 1528 responsible for memory management along with other service routines).
It is however, noted that Driesen does not disclose “dividing read-write data”, although Driesen teaches both read, write operation during data migration particularly migrating plurality of segment of the records (Driesen: Abstract). On the other hand, Sankaran disclosed “dividing read-write data” (Sankaran: fig 74, memory system, 0899-0901 – Sankaran teaches data management unit element 6905 supporting both dividing read-write data buffers particularly processing large matrix of data divided into sub-blocks in executing read-write data)
PNG
media_image3.png
210
215
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention data migration and/or parallel data processing in shared memory of Sankaran et al., into segmented database migration, particularly migrating plurality of segmented data of Driesen et al; because both Driesen, Sankaran teaches data migration (Driesen: Abstract; Sankaran: fig 5 0230,0233) and they both teaches memory management (Driesen: fig 15; Sankaran: fig 28, 0372-0373), and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Driesen, Sankaran teaches data migration and memory management, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to perform read, write functions of segmented data, managing memory in execution of specific tasks particularly CAC protocol to enable coherent read and write requests to processing (Sankar: 0155-0156), thereby improving overall quality and reliability of workload that including data transfers, reduce and/or minimizing error reporting.
As to claim 2. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed
“receiving, by means of a virtual file system interface, the data transmission request, which is sent by the user-mode application program” (Driesen: fig 1, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079)
As to claim 3. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“creating a data migration thread pool, wherein the data migration thread pool comprises the plurality of data migration threads” (Sankaran: fig 5-6, 0231-0232, 0236-0237)
As to claim 4. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“wherein the read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into a plurality of data sub-segments comprises: “ (Driesen ;0054-0055, fig 5)
“the read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into the plurality of data sub-segments in order based on a preset length” (Driesen ;0054-0055, 0059-0060, fig 5-6). On the other hand, Sankaran disclosed “dividing read-write data” (Sankaran: fig 74, memory system, 0899-0901)
As to Claim 5 - 6. (Cancelled)
As to claim 7. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“switching the plurality of data migration threads into a user-mode address space based on the memory management unit corresponding to the user-mode application program” (Driesen: 0019-0020, 0027-0028, 0031-0032) and
“performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache by using the plurality of data migration threads based on the source addresses and the destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments” (Driesen: 0030-0031,0039-0041)
As to claim 8. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“dividing a cache of the user-mode application program into a plurality of first segments based on a preset length, and determining the source addresses of the plurality of data sub- segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of first segments” (Driesen: 0057-0058, 0060-0061,0064); and
“dividing the kernel-mode cache into a plurality of second segments based on the preset length, and determining the destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of second segments” (Driesen : fig 1-2, fig 15, 0032-0033,0037-0038, 0077-0079)
As to claim 9. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to migrate the plurality of data sub-segments from the user-mode application program to the kernel-mode cache” (Driesen : fig 1-2, fig 15, 0032-0033,0037-0038, 0077-0079,0083-0084).
As to claim 10. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“dividing the kernel-mode cache into a plurality of second segments based on a preset length, and determining the source addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of second segments” (Driesen : fig 1-2, fig 15, 0032-0033,0037-0038, 0077-0079, 0084-0085)
; and
“dividing a cache of the user-mode application program into a plurality of first segments based on the preset length, and determining the destination addresses of the plurality of data sub-segments based on starting addresses of the plurality of first segments” (Driesen fig 1, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079, 0089-0090).
As to claim 11. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
wherein the executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache comprises (Driesen: Abstract, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079)
“executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to migrate the plurality of data sub-segments from the kernel-mode cache to the user-mode application program” (Driesen : 0029-0031, 0033)
As to claim 12. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: wherein after the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads, the data migration method further comprises: (Driesen: Abstract, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079)
“dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes (Driesen: 0057-0058, 0060-0061,0064); and
“performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads, wherein the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of data stripes” (Driesen: 0099-0100,0103-0105)
As to claim 13. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: “wherein before the performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads, the data migration method further comprises” (Driesen: 0099-0100) “creating an erasure coding redundant computation thread pool, wherein the erasure coding redundant computation thread pool comprises the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads” (Driesen: 0051-0053, 0059-0060)
As to claim 14. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed:
“dividing the migrated data into the plurality of data stripes in order based on a preset length” (Driesen: 0035-0038)
As to claim 15. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: wherein the performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes inn parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads comprises: (Driesen: 0099-0100)
“creating a plurality of corresponding erasure coding redundant computation tasks based on input cache addresses and output cache addresses of the plurality of data strips” (Driesen: 0051-0052, 0099-0100) ; and
“performing the erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads” (Driesen: 0051-0053, 0059-0060)
As to claim 16. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: wherein before the dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes, the data migration method further comprises: (Driesen: 0035-0038,0040-0041)
“determining whether all of the plurality of data migration threads are completed” (Driesen: 0027-0029); and
“in response to all of the plurality of data migration threads being completed, performing the dividing migrated data into a plurality of data stripes” (Driesen: fig 1, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079, 0089-0090)
As to Claim 17. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: wherein after the performing erasure coding redundant computation on the plurality of data stripes in parallel by using a plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads, the data migration method further comprises: (Driesen: 0099-0100)
“determining whether all of the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads are completed” (Driesen: 0051-0053, 0059-0060) ; and
“in response to all of the plurality of erasure coding redundant computation threads being completed, sending data obtained after the erasure coding redundant computation to a storage system” (Driesen: 0051-0053, 0085-0087)
As to Claim 18. - 20. (Cancelled)
As to Claim 21, the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: “wherein an executive body of the method is a kernel-mode client” (Driesen: fig 1-3, fig 15, 0078-0079)
Claim 22. (Currently Amended) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed, wherein the kernel-mode client comprises a distributed storage client, and the distributed storage client is deployed in a user mode of an Operating System (OS) of a client host to achieve interconnection and access from the client host to a distributed storage system. (Driesen: fig 1-3, fig 15, 0078-0081)
As to Claim 23. (Previously Presented) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed: wherein the executing the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks in parallel by using the plurality of data migration threads to achieve data migration of the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and the kernel-mode cache comprises: (Driesen: Abstract, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079)
“switching each data migration thread of the plurality of data migration threads to a Memory Management Unit (MMU) of a designated user-mode process according to a corresponding one of the plurality of corresponding data migration tasks” (Driesen: 0027-0029, 0031,0078-0079) and
“executing data migration instructions according to the source addresses and the destination addresses” (Driesen: 0029-0035)
As to Claim 24. (New) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed “wherein before the performing data migration on the plurality of data sub-segments between the user-mode application program and a kernel-mode cache in parallel by using a plurality of data migration threads, the data migration method further comprises: (Driesen: Abstract, fig 15, 0019, 0078-0079)
“creating a data migration thread pool, wherein the data migration thread pool comprises the plurality of data migration threads” (Driesen : 0029-0031, 0033)
As to Claim 25. (New) the combination of Driesen, Sankaran disclosed, wherein the read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into a plurality of data sub-segments comprises: (Driesen ;0054-0055, fig 5
“the read-write data, which corresponds to the data transmission request, into the plurality of data sub-segments in order based on a preset length” (Driesen ;0054-0055, 0059-0060, fig 5-6). On the other hand, Sankaran disclosed “dividing read-write data” (Sankaran: fig 74, memory system, 0899-0901
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2018/0052620
b. US Pub. No. 2019/0347125
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154