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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19209049 filed 05/15/2025 is a Continuation of 18501815 , filed 11/03/2023 ,now U.S. Patent # 12314252
Child data
None
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. No Foreign priority was filed.
Drawings
4. The drawing was accepted for examination.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,252 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application language direct to similar concept such as receiving request to perform on the cluster nodes, where the cluster nodes include router and storage nodes, validating the request at the service and perform the request for data. The differences are, 252 includes namespace and the ratio or the amount of router nodes and storage nodes which determine to increase or to decrease the amount of router nodes and storage nodes according to the operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitations in 252 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recites “determining, by the second service, the health of the cluster based on the data and communication with a service of the one or more router nodes”” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 9 and 16, the method processed by the system, the system including memory and instructions, the one or more non-transitory media are computer or computer components. These are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
"receiving, by the first service of a distributed data storage system, a request associated with a health of a cluster that comprises one or more router nodes and one or more storage nodes" is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) or at most selecting a particular data source (i.e. the record) to be manipulate (i.e. by a transaction). This does not provide integration into a practical application.
“validating by the first service, the request” is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as to check whether the request is in compliance with set format. This does not provide integration into a practical application.
“Transmitting, by a second service of the distributed data storage system, a message to the first service to obtaining data that is associated with the one or more router nodes and the one or more data storage nodes” is insignificant extra-solution activities. This limitation is data retrieval process for retrieving information.
“receiving, by the second service, the data from the first service” is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) or at most selecting a particular data source (i.e. the record) to be manipulate (i.e. by a transaction). This does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receiving", “validating”, “transmitting” and “receiving” are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, when re-evaluated at Step 2B this limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional and remains insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)." To the extent this is a request for "transactions" on records that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "ii. Electronic recordkeeping, …Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)". This limitation does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2, 10 and 17, the limitation “wherein the data comprises a health constraints that is associated with the cluster, a topology that is associated with the cluster, a cluster size constraint, or a namespace that is associated with the cluster” is only further define what data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 3, 11 and 18, the limitation “determining the health of the cluster comprises receiving a communication from the service of the one or more router nodes indicating that the cluster comprises a faulty router nodes” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 4, 12 and 19, the limitation “determining the health of the cluster comprises receiving a communication form the service of the one or more router nodes indicating that the cluster comprises a faulty data node” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 5, 13 and 20,the limitation “transmitting, by the second service, the health of the cluster to the first service, wherein in response to receiving the health of the cluster, the first service updates a database comprising the data that is associated with the cluster , with the health of the cluster” is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 6 and 14, the limitation “in response to determining that the health of the cluster is associated with a fault, transitioning the cluster to a designated failure zone” is an additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 7 and 15 the limitation “in response to determining that the health of the cluster is associated with a fault, designating a new failure zone for the cluster” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 8, the limitation “in response to determining that the health of the cluster indicates a faulty router node or a faulty data node, replacing the faulty router node or the faulty data mode” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dain et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0047088 A1) in view of GUPTA et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0051457 A1).
As to claim 1, Dain discloses a method performed by a processing device, comprising:
receiving, by a first service of a distributed data storage system, a request associated with a health of a cluster that comprises one or more router nodes and one or more data storage nodes (the health check function includes sending a request message to each node in the distributed system to determine their current operational status) (paragraph 0027).
transmitting, by a second service of the distributed data storage system, a
message to the first service to obtain data that is associated with the one or more
router nodes and the one or more data storage nodes (sending a request message to each node…) (paragraph 0027); and
determining, by the second service, the health of the cluster based on the
data and based on communicating with a service of the one or more router nodes (the health check function includes sending a request message to each node in the distributed system to determine their current operational status) (paragraph 0027).
Dain does not explicitly disclose validating, by the first service, the and receiving, by the second service, the data from the first service. GUPTA discloses validating, by the first service request (validating network-based service) (claim 1) and the request and receiving, by the second service, the data from the first service (receiving a set of first responses from the second-network based service; providing the set of first responses to the first network-based service) (claim1). This suggests the claim language of validating, by the first service, the and receiving, by the second service, the data from the first service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify teaching of Dain to include validating, by the first service, the and receiving, by the second service, the data from the first service as disclosed by GUPTA in order to provide health check.
As to claim 2, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data comprises a health constraint that is associated with the cluster, a topology that is associated with the cluster (topology) (paragraph 0192), a cluster size constraint, or a namespace that is associated with the cluster.
As to claim 3, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the health of the cluster comprises receiving a communication from the service of the one or more router nodes indicating that the cluster comprises a faulty router node (faulty processor nodes) (paragraph 0134) (one of the node is faulty router node).
As to claim 4, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the health of the cluster comprises receiving a communication from the service of the one or more router nodes indicating that the cluster comprises a faulty data node (faulty processor nodes) (paragraph 0134) (one of the node is faulty data node).
As to claim 5, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the second service, the health of the cluster to the first service, wherein in response to receiving the health of the cluster, the first service updates a database comprising the data that is associated with the cluster, with the health of the cluster (processor node updates a local copy of distributed node service management configuration…) (paragraph 0029).
As to claim 6, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the health of the cluster is associated with a fault, transitioning the cluster to a designated failure zone.
As to claim 7, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the health of the cluster is associated with a fault, designating a new failure zone for the cluster (….(join failure” transition 840) (paragraph 0168)
As to claim 8, Dain discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the health of the cluster indicates a faulty router node or a faulty data node, replacing the faulty router node or the faulty data node (remove a specific processor node…) (paragraph 0192).
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Dain discloses a distributed data storage system comprising memory (memory) (paragraph 0049) having instructions stored thereupon, and one or more processors (a processor) (paragraph 0049) configured to execute the instructions (system program) (paragraph 0052), causing the distributed data storage system to perform operations
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Dain discloses a one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (memory) (paragraph 0049) having instructions (system program) (paragraph 0052) stored thereupon which, when executed by a distributed data storage system having at least a processor (a processor) (paragraph 0049) and a memory (memory) (paragraph 0049) therein, causes the distributed data storage system to perform operations.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154