DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,936.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,298,936
1. A data processing system comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising programming instructions for execution by the processor that,
9. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein the oplock listener notifies an automated file dehydrator configured to manage data files stored in both local and cloud data storage.
when executed by the processor, causing the data processing system to:
8. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein the data file is selected as a candidate for dehydration in which only a placeholder for the data file is stored in local data storage while remaining data for the data file is moved to cloud data storage.
obtain a handle together with an oplock on a selected data file, wherein the handle acts as a pointer to the selected data file, allowing an application program to read from or write to the selected data file;
set an oplock listener to notify whether the oplock on the selected data file is broken;
set a timer to count a set time;
in response to determining that the timer has expired and the oplock is unbroken, dehydrate the selected data file; and
in response to determining that the timer has not expired and the oplock is broken, acquire a new handle with the oplock and restart the timer without dehydrating the selected data file.
1. A data processing system comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising programming instructions for execution by the processor
to implement an automated file dehydrator to manage data files stored in both local and cloud data storage, the instructions,
when executed by the processor, causing the processor to:
select a data file as a candidate for dehydration in which only a placeholder for the data file is stored in the local data storage while remaining data for the data file is moved to the cloud data storage;
obtain a handle together with an oplock on the selected data file, wherein the handle acts as a pointer to the selected data file, allowing an application program to read from or write to the selected data file;
set an oplock listener to notify the automated file dehydrator whether the oplock on the selected data file is broken;
set a timer to count a set time from when the handle with the oplock is obtained; determine whether the timer has expired and the oplock remains unbroken;
if it is determined that the timer has expired and the oplock remains unbroken, dehydrate the selected data file using the automated file dehydrator; and
if it is determined that the timer has not expired and the oplock is broken, acquire a new handle with the oplock and restart the timer upon obtaining the new handle without dehydrating the selected data file.
2. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein the oplock is a fragile oplock.
2. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein the oplock is a fragile oplock.
3. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein the timer is set to an average amount of time within which a file in local storage is used.
3. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein the timer is set to an average amount of time within which a file in local storage is used.
4. The data processing system of claim 1, the instructions further causing the data processing system to check whether the oplock has broken between the timer expiring and beginning dehydration of the selected data file.
4. The data processing system of claim 1, the instructions further causing the processor to check whether the oplock has broken between the timer expiring and beginning dehydration of the selected data file.
5. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein, at any point that the oplock on the selected data file is broken, the data processing system desists from dehydration of the selected data file.
5. The data processing system of claim 1, wherein, at any point that the oplock on the selected data file is broken, the processor desists from possible dehydration of the selected data file.
6. The data processing system of claim 5, the instructions further causing the data processing system to, in response to the oplock being broken, reiterate obtaining a handle and oplock on the selected data file and setting the timer.
6. The data processing system of claim 5, the instructions further causing the processor to, in response to the oplock being broken, reiterate obtaining a handle and oplock on the selected data file and setting a timer.
7. The data processing system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface to receive user input setting an amount of time to be timed by the timer.
7. The data processing system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface to receive user input setting an amount of time to be timed by the timer.
Claim 10 (a storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 11 (a storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 (a storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 (a storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 (a storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 (a storage medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished 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. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
09 January 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168