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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
Objected Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if all the objected claims were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims. The amendment would not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejections.
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 claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
creating a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node;
splitting the key into a first key portion and a second key portion, wherein the first key portion is proportional to a log size of a sorted log of a log structured merge tree for the key-value store;
utilizing at least one of the first key portion or the second key portion to provide access to the value data item. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “file system” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “file system” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the file system, “creating a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node;” encompasses mentally a person creating a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node.
Next, “splitting the key into a first key portion and a second key portion, wherein the first key portion is proportional to a log size of a sorted log of a log structured merge tree for the key-value store;” encompasses mentally a person splitting the key into a first key portion and a second key portion, wherein the first key portion is proportional to a log size of a sorted log of a log structured merge tree for the key-value store.
Next, “utilizing at least one of the first key portion or the second key portion to provide access to the value data item.” encompasses mentally a person utilizing at least one of the first key portion or the second key portion to provide access to the value data item. The mere nominal recitation of a file system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites
storing the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;
storing the second key portion into a secondary log;
Next, “storing the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “storing the second key portion into a secondary log;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere creating and manipulating keys cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “storing the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” and “storing the second key portion into a secondary log;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “storing the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “storing the second key portion into a secondary log;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “storing the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” and “storing the second key portion into a secondary log;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “in response to receiving a request for the value data item, using the first key portion within the sorted log to identify the value data item;” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to receiving a request for the value data item, using the first key portion within the sorted log to identify the value data item. Next, the limitation “comparing the first key portion to key portions occurring before or after the first key portion within the sorted log to determine whether a collision exists;” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the first key portion to key portions occurring before or after the first key portion within the sorted log to determine whether a collision exists. Next, the limitation “in response to detecting the collision, using the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to detecting the collision, using the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “in response to not detecting the collision based upon the first key portion not matching the key portions, using the first key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item without accessing the second key portion from the secondary log.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to not detecting the collision based upon the first key portion not matching the key portions, using the first key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item without accessing the second key portion from the secondary log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “evaluating a distribution uniformity of keys within a keyspace of the key- value store; and in response to the keys having a uniform distribution where a portion of the key can be used to determine if the key is located within the sorted log, splitting the key into the first key portion and the second key portion.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person evaluating a distribution uniformity of keys within a keyspace of the key- value store. Next, the limitation “and in response to the keys having a uniform distribution where a portion of the key can be used to determine if the key is located within the sorted log, splitting the key into the first key portion and the second key portion.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person evaluating a distribution in response to the keys having a uniform distribution where a portion of the key can be used to determine if the key is located within the sorted log, splitting the key into the first key portion and the second key portion. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “receiving a request for the value data item;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person receiving a request for the value data item. Next, the limitation “loading the sorted log from storage into memory and retaining the secondary log within the storage” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the limitation “accessing the first key portion within the memory for providing the request with access to the value data item.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “in response to detecting a collision of the first key portion with a key portion within the memory, using the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to detecting a collision of the first key portion with a key portion within the memory, using the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “evaluating the sorted log to determine a size of data stored within the sorted log;” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to evaluating the sorted log to determine a size of data stored within the sorted log. Next, the limitation “selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based up the number of bytes being proportional to the size of data stored within the sorted log.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based up the number of bytes being proportional to the size of data stored within the sorted log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determining a number of bytes of the key;” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a number of bytes of the key. Next, the limitation “identifying a number of keys stored within the sorted log;” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person identifying a number of keys stored within the sorted log. Next, the limitation “selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based upon the number of bytes of the key and the number of keys stored within the sorted log.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based upon the number of bytes of the key and the number of keys stored within the sorted log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “evaluating the key to identify a prefix portion of the key and a non-prefix portion of the key;” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a number of bytes of the key. Next, the limitation “selecting the prefix portion of the key as the first key portion;” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting the prefix portion of the key as the first key portion. Next, the limitation “selecting the non-prefix portion of the key as the second key portion.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting the non-prefix portion of the key as the second key portion. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 10-14 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 10 recites a non-transitory machine readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 10 recites a non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to:
create a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key- value store integrated within a file system of a node;
split the key into a first key portion and a second key portion, wherein the first key portion is proportional to a log size of a sorted log of a log structured merge tree for the key-value store;
utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “file system” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “file system” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the file system, “create a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node;” encompasses mentally a person creating a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node.
Next, “split the key into a first key portion and a second key portion, wherein the first key portion is proportional to a log size of a sorted log of a log structured merge tree for the key-value store;” encompasses mentally a person splitting the key into a first key portion and a second key portion, wherein the first key portion is proportional to a log size of a sorted log of a log structured merge tree for the key-value store.
Next, “utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item” encompasses mentally a person utilizing the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item. The mere nominal recitation of a file system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites
store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;
store the second key portion into a secondary log;
Next, “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 10 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere creating and manipulating keys cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” and “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” and “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “wherein the instructions when executed further cause the machine to: select a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based upon a number of bytes of the key and a number of keys stored within the sorted log.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based upon a number of bytes of the key and a number of keys stored within the sorted log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “receive a request for the value data item;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to receive a request for the value data item. Next, the limitation “utilize the first key portion within the sorted log to identify the value data item;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person utilizing the first key portion within the sorted log to identify the value data item. Next, the limitation “compare the first key portion to other key portions within the sorted log to determine whether a collision exists;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the first key portion to other key portions within the sorted log to determine whether a collision exists. Next, the limitation “in response to not detecting the collision based upon the first key portion not matching the key portions, use the first key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item without accessing the second key portion from the secondary log.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to not detecting the collision based upon the first key portion not matching the key portions, use the first key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item without accessing the second key portion from the secondary log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “in response to detecting the collision, use the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person detecting the collision, use the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “in response to determining that the keys have a relatively equal distribution where a portion of the key can be used to determine if the key is located within the sorted log, split the key into the first key portion and the second key portion.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the keys have a relatively equal distribution where a portion of the key can be used to determine if the key is located within the sorted log, split the key into the first key portion and the second key portion. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 15-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 15 recites a computing device and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 15 recites a computing device comprising:
create a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node;
split the key into a first key portion and a second key portion; and
utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item based upon whether a collision of the first key portion within the sorted log is detected. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a computing device”, “a memory”, and “a processor” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a computing device”, “a memory”, and “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the file system, “create a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node;” encompasses mentally a person creating a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node.
Next, “split the key into a first key portion and a second key portion;” encompasses mentally a person splitting the key into a first key portion and a second key portion.
Next, “utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item based upon whether a collision of the first key portion within the sorted log is detected.” encompasses mentally a person utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item based upon whether a collision of the first key portion within the sorted log is detected. The mere nominal recitation of a file system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites
a memory comprising machine executable code; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the machine executable code to cause the computing device to:
store the first key portion into a sorted log of the log structured merge tree;
store the second key portion into a secondary log; and
Next, “a memory comprising machine executable code; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the machine executable code to cause the computing device to:” encompasses amounts to mere generic computer components applying an abstract idea.
Next, “store the first key portion into a sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “store the second key portion into a secondary log; encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 15 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere creating and manipulating keys cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” and “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “store the first key portion into the sorted log of the log structured merge tree;” and “store the second key portion into a secondary log;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “load the sorted log from storage into memory and retaining the secondary log within the storage” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the limitation “access the first key portion within the memory for providing the request with access to the value data item.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “in response to detecting a collision of the first key portion with a key portion within the memory, using the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to detecting a collision of the first key portion with a key portion within the memory, using the first key portion and the second key portion to provide the request with access to the value data item. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “in response to not detecting the collision, use the first key portion to provide access to the value data item without accessing the second key portion from the secondary log.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to not detecting the collision, use the first key portion to provide access to the value data item without accessing the second key portion from the secondary log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “evaluating the sorted log to determine a size of data stored within the sorted log;” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to evaluating the sorted log to determine a size of data stored within the sorted log. Next, the limitation “selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based up the number of bytes being proportional to the size of data stored within the sorted log.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based up the number of bytes being proportional to the size of data stored within the sorted log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determining a number of bytes of the key;” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a number of bytes of the key. Next, the limitation “identifying a number of keys stored within the sorted log;” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person identifying a number of keys stored within the sorted log. Next, the limitation “selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based upon the number of bytes of the key and the number of keys stored within the sorted log.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a number of bytes of the key as the first key portion based upon the number of bytes of the key and the number of keys stored within the sorted log. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2012/0036163; hereinafter: Myers, in IDS 07/23/2025) in view of Agrawal et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0240674; hereinafter: Agrawal, in IDS 07/23/2025) and further in view of Gillis et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0197904; hereinafter: Gillis, in IDS 07/23/2025)
Claims 1, 10, and 15
As to claims 1, 10, and 15, Myers discloses a computing device comprising:
a memory comprising machine executable code (paragraph[0007]); and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the machine executable code to cause the computing device to (paragraph[0007]):
create a key corresponding to a content hash of a value data item of a key-value store integrated within a file system of a node (paragraph[0042], the reference describes keyspaces (create a set of keyspaces, as claimed) being monitored by the nodes (i.e., tracked by the key-value store, as claimed).). The key values are stored in the keyspaces (i.e., uniformly distributed within a keyspace, as claimed).);
Myers does not appear to explicitly disclose
split the key into a first key portion and a second key portion;
store the first key portion into a sorted log of the log structured merge tree;
store the second key portion into a secondary log; and
utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item based upon whether a collision of the first key portion within the sorted log is detected.
However, Agrawal discloses split the key into a first key portion and a second key portion (paragraph[0002], there reference describes storing keys in multiple levels of storage (i.e., first key portion and second key portion, as claimed).;
store the first key portion into a sorted log of the log structured merge tree (paragraph[0031], the reference describes entering data into a log-structured merge-tree (i.e., populate a log structured merge tree, as claimed).);
store the second key portion into a secondary log (i.e., paragraph[0068], the refence describes hash data (i.e., hash of a value data item, as claimed) stored withing the database records in the cache memory.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Myers with the teachings of Agrawal to load content hash data into a merge tree which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Myers with the teachings of Agrawal to efficiently reduce calls/request between database nodes using probabilistic data structures (Agrawal: paragraph[0001]).
The combination of Myers and Agrawal do not appear to explicitly disclose utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item based upon whether a collision of the first key portion within the sorted log is detected.
However, Gillis discloses utilize the first key portion or a combination of the first key portion and the second key portion to provide access to the value data item based upon whether a collision of the first key portion within the sorted log is detected (paragraph[0168], the reference describes query using a key (i.e., utilize the key to access, as claimed) to retrieve data (i.e., the value data item, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Myers with the teachings of Agrawal and Gillis to sort the data in log structured merge tree which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Myers with the teachings of Agrawal and Gillis to efficiently parathion data in a system that can be used in a time series database to support level three, advanced analytic queries, while minimizing data transfer within a computer and within the cluster and maximizing query throughput (Gillis: paragraph[0042]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scarpino et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0279946) discloses an integrity check and recovery in a key/value store.
Waghulde U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0212680) discloses efficiently storing data across memory hierarchy on one or plurality of nodes include creating order partitions of data based on key where partition order is achieved using highly space optimized prefix tree index.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 May 30, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights