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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on May 19, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- of U.S. Patent No. 12019588 (similarly patent No. 12393551).
Comparing the claims of the current application (19/212,466) with the patented claims (US patents 12019588 and 12393551) side by side, it can be seen the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited U.S Patents.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited U.S Patent No. 12019588 (similarly patent 12393551). The claim merely omits/add certain limitations. Even though the claims omit some limitations, that does not change the scope of the invention and would perform same functionality.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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. Regarding the claim 1, it recites receiving or generating a data storage plan for the data shard, the data storage plan identifying a file subset of a plurality of data storage files of the data shard to be merged into a larger data storage file, the data storage plan further identifying a node subset of a plurality of computing nodes of the distributed database system subscribing to the data shard, the subset including the primary computing node; identifying which computing nodes of the node subset each have a current utilization satisfying an availability criterion, as candidate computing nodes; identifying which data storage files of the file subset each candidate computing node locally caches; selecting one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches; and causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, wherein execution of the data storage plan resolves fragmentation of data stored in the data shard resulting from queries being performed against the data, and wherein identifying which computing nodes of the node subset each have the current utilization satisfying the availability criterion, as the candidate computing nodes, comprises: identifying a configuration of each computing node of the node subset within a resource pool, the configuration specifying the current utilization of the computing node; and selecting each computing node of which the current utilization satisfies the availability criterion, as one of the candidate computing nodes.
The claim recited the limitation of receiving or generating a data storage plan …., identifying which computing nodes …., identifying which data storage files …., selecting one of the candidate computing nodes …., identifying which computing nodes of the node subset each have the current utilization satisfying ….., identifying a configuration of each computing node of the node subset within a resource pool …, and selecting each computing node of which the current utilization satisfies the availability criterion as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally generate plan, identify as claimed, and select candidate node as claimed. If necessary, user can also use physical aid such as pencil and paper. Hence, the above limitations are a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand.").
The claim recited one additional element: causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, wherein execution of the data storage plan resolves fragmentation of data stored in the data shard resulting from queries being performed against the data The causing step as recited amounts to mere data manipulation and can done with generic computer component, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of causing step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein identifying which data storage files of the file subset each candidate computing node locally caches comprises, for each candidate computing node other than the primary computing node: sending a message to the candidate computing node to receive information regarding the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches; and receiving a reply from the candidate computing node including the information regarding the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the information comprises one or more of: a number of the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches; and a size of the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches, comprises: selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan as the candidate computing node locally caching a greatest number of the data storage files of the file subset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches, comprises: selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan as the candidate computing node locally caching a largest size of the data storage files of the file subset, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches, comprises: for each candidate computing node, computing a score based on a number of the data storage files that the candidate computing node locally caches and based on a size of the data storage files that the candidate computing node locally caches; selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan as the candidate computing node having a highest score, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan is other than the primary computing node, and wherein causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan comprises: sending the data storage plan to the selected one of the candidate computing nodes for execution, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of maintains a database that includes data shard. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan is the primary computing node, and wherein causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan comprises: executing the data storage plan, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoyi et al. (Pub. No. : US 20150261468 A1) in the view of Georgiou et al. (Pub. No. : US 20170295246 A1) and Crofton et al. (Pub. No. : US 20170331880 A1)
As to claim 1 Khoyi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a primary computing node of a distributed database system to perform processing, the distributed database system maintaining a database that includes a data shard for which the primary computing node is responsible, the processing comprising:
receiving or generating a data storage plan for the data shard (paragraph [0042]: data replication request may identify the file to be replicated (and may include other data such as an identifier for a storage plan associated with the file)), the data storage plan identifying a file subset of a plurality of data storage files of the data shard to be merged into a larger data storage file, the subset including the primary computing node (paragraphs [0062], [0073], [0091], [0125]: Storage plan module 214 can maintain volume status information 216 that provides an indication of the time it takes server 202a to read and write files to the various storage volumes 206 to centralized data stores or repositories);
identifying which data storage files of the file subset each candidate computing node locally caches (paragraph [0043]: a copy of the file will be written);
selecting one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches (paragraph [0096]: The server can select the storage volume on which file stored and that has the least read access cost as the source storage volume (step 604) and the storage volume in the set of remaining mirror storage volumes with the least write access cost as the target storage volume (step 608)); and
causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan (paragraph [0096]: The file can be copied from the source storage volume to the target storage volume (step 610)).
Khoyi does not explicitly disclose but Georgiou teaches the data storage plan further identifying a node subset of a plurality of computing nodes of the distributed database system subscribing to the data shard (paragraph [0018], [0024]: migrating the application to the specified data center includes identifying a shard wherein each of the shards can contain data of a subset of the users that includes a global storage system, e.g., a global data store 175, that stores data from each of the shards from each of the data centers).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Khoyi to adding above limitation as taught by Georgiou to improve an efficiency of the application (Georgiou, paragraph [0013]).
Khoyi and Georgiou do not explicitly disclose but Crofton teaches identifying which computing nodes of the node subset each have a current utilization satisfying an availability criterion, as candidate computing nodes (paragraph [0083]: determining an overall amount of storage utilized, indicating to the client that they may store additional files);
wherein execution of the data storage plan resolves fragmentation of data stored in the data shard resulting from queries being performed against the data (paragraph [0064], [0077], [0027]-[0130]: receive requests (i.e. query) to synchronize or store a file in the aggregated cloud from a client device, in some implementations, and may select one or more cloud storage providers to which the file or file fragments should be directed for storage and the synchronization client may select a target cloud storage provider 110 to store the file based on current utilization at each provider), and
wherein identifying which computing nodes of the node subset each have the current utilization satisfying the availability criterion, as the candidate computing nodes (paragraphs [0101]-[0102]: Monitoring storage utilization may comprise identifying a total amount stored in each of a plurality of monitored folders at the client device, transmitting a request to each cloud storage provider for a current storage level or status, or otherwise verifying storage amounts and the synchronization client or aggregation provider may select an account with the least free space, to ensure a largest contiguous free space is maintained), comprises:
identifying a configuration of each computing node of the node subset within a resource pool, the configuration specifying the current utilization of the computing node (paragraph [0101]: Monitoring storage utilization may comprise identifying a total amount stored in each of a plurality of monitored folders at the client device, transmitting a request to each cloud storage provider for a current storage level or status, or otherwise verifying storage amounts); and
selecting each computing node of which the current utilization satisfies the availability criterion, as one of the candidate computing nodes (paragraph [0102]: determine if the storage utilization of an account at a first storage provider is above a threshold (e.g. set amount, percentage, etc.). If not, then steps 572-574 may be periodically repeated. If the storage utilization of the account is above the threshold, then at step 576 in some implementations, the synchronization client or aggregation provider may identify an account at a second storage provider with a storage utilization below the threshold. If multiple accounts have storage utilization less than the threshold, then in some implementations, the synchronization client or aggregation provider may select an account randomly. In other implementations, the synchronization client or aggregation provider may select an account with the least free space, to ensure a largest contiguous free space is maintained).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Khoyi and Georgiou by adding above limitation as taught by Crofton to provide faster access to synchronized files or for showing thumbnails of media files in a user interface (Crofton, paragraph [0059]).
As to clam 4 Khoyi together with Georgiou and Crofton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium according to claim 1. Khoyi teaches wherein selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches, comprises: selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan as the candidate computing node locally caching a greatest number of the data storage files of the file subset (paragraph [0096]:).
As to clam 5 Khoyi together with Georgiou and Crofton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium according to claim 1. Khoyi teaches wherein selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches, comprises: selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan as the candidate computing node locally caching a largest size of the data storage files of the file subset (paragraphs [0037], [0076]).
As to clam 6 Khoyi together with Georgiou and Crofton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium according to claim 1. Khoyi teaches wherein selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan, based on the data storage files of the file subset that each candidate computing node locally caches, comprises: for each candidate computing node, computing a score based on a number of the data storage files that the candidate computing node locally caches and based on a size of the data storage files that the candidate computing node locally caches; selecting the one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan as the candidate computing node having a highest score (paragraph []).
As to clam 7 Khoyi together with Georgiou and Crofton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium according to claim 1. Khoyi teaches wherein the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan is other than the primary computing node, and wherein causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan comprises: sending the data storage plan to the selected one of the candidate computing nodes for execution (paragraphs [0072], [0076]).
As to clam 8 Khoyi together with Georgiou and Crofton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium according to claim 1. Khoyi teaches wherein the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan is the primary computing node, and wherein causing the selected one of the candidate computing nodes to execute the data storage plan comprises: executing the data storage plan (paragraph [0097]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoyi et al. (Pub. No. : US 20150261468 A1) in the view of Georgiou et al. (Pub. No. : US 20170295246 A1), Crofton et al. (Pub. No. : US 20170331880 A1) and Eshleman et al. (Pub. No. : US 20020116457 A1)
As to claim 2 all of the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed in above. Khovi, Georgiou, and Crofton do not explicitly disclose but Eshleman teaches wherein identifying which data storage files of the file subset each candidate computing node locally caches comprises, for each candidate computing node other than the primary computing node: sending a message to the candidate computing node to receive information regarding the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches and receiving a reply from the candidate computing node including the information regarding the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches (paragraph [0040], [0041]: receives the request from application server 306, it checks its database cache to determine if the request can be satisfied without input from DBMS server 308. If the cache contains the requested information, the RSU returns the results to application server 306 via modified client API 305). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Khoyi, Georgiou, and Crofton by adding above limitation as taught by Eshleman to improved performance, redundancy and capacity of distributed database systems and applications (Eshleman, paragraph [0003]).
As to clam 3 Khoyi together with Georgiou, Crofton, and Eshleman teaches the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium according to claim 1. Khoyi teaches wherein the information comprises one or more of: a number of the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches and a size of the data storage files of the file subset that the candidate computing node locally caches (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as 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 the 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 its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights