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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Claim rejections 35 USC 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that The Office Action interprets the coordinator node and metadata management apparatus in claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the limitations "use[] a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier." The Applicant does not assent to such interpretation. For instance, a computing node and apparatus in cloud environments are understood by one skilled in the art. See MPEP § 2181(I)(C). However, even if such interpretation were appropriate, at least FIGS. 1, 2, and 4-6 and the corresponding paragraphs of the specification provide the required support. See MPEP § 2181(II)(A). Withdrawal of the interpretation is respectfully requested (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully submits that the current specification recites: “For example, the coordinator node 100, the metadata management apparatus 200, and the computing cluster 300 may be implemented by using hardware or software. For example, the coordinator node 100 may be a logical node, for example, coordination software; or the coordinator node 100 may be a physical node, for example, a computing device on which coordination software is deployed. The metadata management apparatus 200 may be a software apparatus or a hardware apparatus with a metadata management function. The computing cluster 300 may be cluster software used for data processing, or a computing device cluster in which the cluster software is deployed.” ([0189], Emphasis added)
Examiner interprets that a “coordinator node” and a “metadata management apparatus” are a logical node/coordination software and a software apparatus. Therefore, the claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): the generic placeholder (e.g. configured to) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
In addition, claim limitations a “coordinator node” and a “metadata management apparatus” in claims 14-20 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the supported structures found for the claimed a “coordinator node” and a “metadata management apparatus” are vague and ambiguous (see [0189] of current specification). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2026 and 2/3/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a “coordinator node” and a “metadata management apparatus” in claims 14-20 (supporting found in the current specification at [0189]: “For example, the coordinator node 100, the metadata management apparatus 200, and the computing cluster 300 may be implemented by using hardware or software. For example, the coordinator node 100 may be a logical node, for example, coordination software; or the coordinator node 100 may be a physical node, for example, a computing device on which coordination software is deployed. The metadata management apparatus 200 may be a software apparatus or a hardware apparatus with a metadata management function. The computing cluster 300 may be cluster software used for data processing, or a computing device cluster in which the cluster software is deployed.”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations a “coordinator node” and a “metadata management apparatus” in claims 14-20 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the supported structures found for the claimed a “coordinator node” and a “metadata management apparatus” are vague and ambiguous (see [0189] of current specification). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 allowed.
Claims 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(f), set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The examiner respectfully submits applicant’s remarks on pages 12-15, filed 7/28/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior arts of record fail to teach obtaining, by the metadata management apparatus and in response to the consistency determining request, a consistency determining result of a metadata cache of at least one computing cluster among a plurality of computing clusters of the data analysis system based on a status of the metadata cache, wherein the consistency determining result indicates whether first metadata cached in the metadata cache is consistent with second metadata stored in the metadata management apparatus; and identifying, by the coordinator node, a target computing cluster from the plurality of computing clusters based on the consistency determining result.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhattacharjee et al. (US 2008/0016030) discloses that an equality condition for a query predicate is a condition which will result in only one value for that predicate qualifying. For example, the condition "where itemID=10" is an equality condition which will qualify those with itemID=10. A range condition for a query predicate is typically a condition which will result in more than one predicate value for that predicate qualifying. For example, the condition "where itemID between 2 and 4" will result in all values between the boundaries 2 and 4 qualifying ([0006]).
Sukumar et al. (US 8,843,533) discloses during a start up phase of a file system, a consistency checker, upon receiving a request from an internal client for a part of data managed by a file system of the storage server, checks file system consistency only for a part of metadata. The part of metadata is used to maintain consistency of the requested data (abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights