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 pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a memory device, a processing device, a host system, a computational operation, and computer-readable storage media do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because receiving, performing, determining, and storing are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A system comprising: a memory device comprising a plurality of dynamic capacity devices; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a host system, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation, wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data; determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag; and storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag.
The limitation of receiving, from a host system, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation, wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data that has been stored with an associated identifier.
The limitation of performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “performing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive data based on an analysis of stored data.
The limitation of determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “determining” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually analyze stored data.
The limitation of storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually place data with an identifier in a separate location.
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, performing, determining, and storing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, performing, determining, and storing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not direct to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitation of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: determining, based on the identifier of the first file system data, that the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; and determining that the first file system data is file data of file system data for the file system, wherein the file system data comprises the file data and file metadata; wherein the value is stored in a first portion of the first memory section, and wherein the value comprises a flag indicating whether the first memory section contains different portions designated for different data types in the file system; wherein the file metadata is stored in one or more entries of a log in a second portion of the first memory section, wherein the log comprises a plurality of entries, wherein the file data is stored in one or more extents in a third portion of the first memory section, and wherein the third portion comprises a plurality of extents; receiving, from the host system, a second request to perform a second computational operation on second file system data, wherein the second request comprises an identifier of the second file system data and specifies the second computational operation; determining, based on the identifier of the second file system data, that the second file system data is stored in the first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices; determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; determining that the second file system data is file metadata of file system data for the file system; and generating an error notification regarding the second request; wherein each of the plurality of memory sections is associated with a respective one of a plurality of tags; wherein a capacity of the first memory section is immutable, and wherein the first tag is mapped to the first memory section and an identifier of the host system; wherein the operations further comprise: mapping, to the second tag, the second memory section, and an identifier of the host system; and wherein the memory device is a compute express link (CXL) enabled memory device.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent claim 1 because they further the limitations of claim 1 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform determining, storing, receiving, generating, associating, and mapping steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform determining, storing, receiving, generating, associating, and mapping steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A method comprising: receiving, from a host system, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation, wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data; determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag; and storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag.
The limitation of receiving, by a processing device, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation, wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data that has been stored with an associated identifier.
The limitation of performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “performing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive data based on an analysis of stored data.
The limitation of determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “determining” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually analyze stored data.
The limitation of storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually place data with an identifier in a separate location.
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, performing, determining, and storing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, performing, determining, and storing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not direct to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitation of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: determining, based on the identifier of the first file system data, that the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; and determining that the first file system data is file data of file system data for the file system, wherein the file system data comprises the file data and file metadata; wherein the value is stored in a first portion of the first memory section, and wherein the value comprises a flag indicating whether the first memory section contains different portions designated for different data types in the file system; wherein the file metadata is stored in one or more entries of a log in a second portion of the first memory section, wherein the log comprises a plurality of entries, wherein the file data is stored in one or more extents in a third portion of the first memory section, and wherein the third portion comprises a plurality of extents; receiving, from the host system, a second request to perform a second computational operation on second file system data, wherein the second request comprises an identifier of the second file system data and specifies the second computational operation; determining, based on the identifier of the second file system data, that the second file system data is stored in the first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices; determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; determining that the second file system data is file metadata of file system data for the file system; and generating an error notification regarding the second request; wherein each of the plurality of memory sections is associated with a respective one of a plurality of tags; wherein a capacity of the first memory section is immutable, and wherein the first tag is mapped to the first memory section and an identifier of the host system.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent claim 10 because they further the limitations of claim 10 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform determining, storing, receiving, generating, associating, and mapping steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform determining, storing, receiving, generating, associating, and mapping steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a host system, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation, wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data; determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag; and storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag.
The limitation of receiving, from a host system, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation, wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data that has been stored with an associated identifier.
The limitation of performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “performing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive data based on an analysis of stored data.
The limitation of determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “determining” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually analyze stored data.
The limitation of storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually place data with an identifier in a separate location.
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, performing, determining, and storing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, performing, determining, and storing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not direct to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitation of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: determining, based on the identifier of the first file system data, that the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; and determining that the first file system data is file data of file system data for the file system, wherein the file system data comprises the file data and file metadata; wherein the value is stored in a first portion of the first memory section, and wherein the value comprises a flag indicating whether the first memory section contains different portions designated for different data types in the file system; wherein the file metadata is stored in one or more entries of a log in a second portion of the first memory section, wherein the log comprises a plurality of entries, wherein the file data is stored in one or more extents in a third portion of the first memory section, and wherein the third portion comprises a plurality of extents.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent claim 17 because they further the limitations of claim 17 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform determining, storing, receiving, generating, associating, and mapping steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform determining, storing, receiving, generating, associating, and mapping steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0265190 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, YANG teaches:
a system comprising: a memory device comprising a plurality of dynamic capacity devices; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a host system, a request to perform a computational operation on first file system data, (YANG teaches [0045] performing computational operations.) wherein the request comprises an identifier of the first file system data and specifies the computational operation (YANG teaches [0006] a first identifier associated with system data.), wherein the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of a plurality of memory sections of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0123, 0125] storage in a first memory section and a first identifier.)
performing the computational operation on the first file system data to obtain second data; (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0126] obtaining second bypassed data.)
determining a second memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices and associating the second memory section with a second tag; and storing the second data in the second memory section associated with the second tag (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0129-0130] a second memory section with second data with a second identifier.)
As per Claim 2, YANG teaches:
determining, based on the identifier of the first file system data, that the first file system data is stored in a first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices, wherein the first memory section is associated with a first tag; (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0123, 0125] storage in a first memory section and a first identifier.)
determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; (YANG teaches [0102] implementations of a file system.)
and determining that the first file system data is file data of file system data for the file system, wherein the file system data comprises the file data and file metadata (YANG [0071])
As per Claim 3, YANG teaches:
wherein the value is stored in a first portion of the first memory section, and wherein the value comprises a flag indicating whether the first memory section contains different portions designated for different data types in the file system (YANG [0052] notes that labels indicate different portions of data, wherein labels are analogous to a flag.)
As per Claim 4, YANG teaches:
wherein the file metadata is stored in one or more entries of a log in a second portion of the first memory section, wherein the log comprises a plurality of entries, wherein the file data is stored in one or more extents in a third portion of the first memory section, and wherein the third portion comprises a plurality of extents (YANG [0019])
As per Claim 5, YANG teaches:
receiving, from the host system, a second request to perform a second computational operation on second file system data, wherein the second request comprises an identifier of the second file system data and specifies the second computational operation; (YANG teaches [0045] performing computational operations.)
determining, based on the identifier of the second file system data, that the second file system data is stored in the first memory section of the plurality of dynamic capacity devices; (YANG [FIG. 8])
determining that the first memory section stores a value indicating the first memory section implements a file system; (YANG teaches [0102] implementations of a file system.)
determining that the second file system data is file metadata of file system data for the file system; (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0129-0130] a second memory section with second data with a second identifier.)
and generating an error notification regarding the second request (YANG [0053])
As per Claim 6, YANG teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of memory sections is associated with a respective one of a plurality of tags (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0123, 0125] storage in a first memory section and a first identifier.)
As per Claim 7, YANG teaches:
wherein a capacity of the first memory section is immutable, and wherein the first tag is mapped to the first memory section and an identifier of the host system (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0123, 0125] storage in a first memory section and a first identifier.)
As per Claim 8, YANG teaches:
mapping, to the second tag, the second memory section, and an identifier of the host system (YANG teaches [FIG. 8, 0129-0130] a second memory section with second data with a second identifier.)
As per Claim 9, YANG teaches:
wherein the memory device is a compute express link (CXL) enabled memory device (YANG [0093, 0097])
Claims 10-16 are the method claims corresponding to system claims 1-7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claims 17-20 are the media claims corresponding to system claims 1-4 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 March 16, 2026