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 .
Double Patenting – Non-statutory
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of Patent No. US12380006B2 and US11789830B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1 of US12380006B2 and US11789830B2 (reference patent) has each element of claim(s) 1 of the examined application. The claim language in the reference patent is narrower than the claim language in the examined application. Therefore the application claim(s) is/are anticipated by the patent claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection for independent claim(s) 1, 14, 17, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons:
This is a CON of Patent No. US12380006B2. The elements of independent claim(s) 1, 14, 17 were not found through a search of the prior art, nor were they considered obvious by the examiner. In particular, among the prior art of records, US20140052706A1 do/does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations:
As in claim 1, “generating reconstructed first metadata at the first storage service node, based on recovering replica metadata that corresponds to the first metadata from one or more second storage service nodes among the multiple storage service nodes of the system; storing the reconstructed first metadata in a second storage resource configured at the first storage service node, wherein the second storage resource uses a system-wide resource identifier of the first storage resource that has failed; and based on the reconstructed first metadata at the second storage resource, performing metadata input to and metadata output from the second storage resource without restarting the metadata service at the first storage service node.”
As in claim 14, “generating reconstructed metadata commit logs at the first storage service node, based on recovering, from one or more second storage service nodes among the multiple storage service nodes of the system, replica metadata commit logs that correspond to the first metadata commit logs; storing the reconstructed metadata commit logs in a second storage resource configured at the first storage service node; and based at least in part on the reconstructed metadata commit logs at the second storage resource, performing metadata output from the second storage resource without restarting the metadata service at the first storage service node.”
As in claim 17, “based on detecting that the first storage resource has failed, generate reconstructed first metadata at the first storage service node, wherein the reconstructed first metadata is based on replica metadata that corresponds to the first metadata recovered by the first storage service node from the second storage service node and from the third storage service node; store the reconstructed first metadata in a second storage resource configured at the first storage service node, wherein the second storage resource uses a system-wide resource identifier of the first storage resource that has failed; and without restarting the metadata service at the first storage service node and based on the reconstructed first metadata at the second storage resource, perform one or more of: metadata input to the second storage resource and metadata output from the second storage resource.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights