DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to Application filed August 13, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner has presented the rejections of all of the independent claims first (e.g., claims 1, 7 and 16) followed subsequently by the rejections of the respective dependent claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statements filed on 10/16/25 has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The Specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any grammatical/spelling or any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Objection
Claims 8 recited the limitations of “so that list of recoverable from the solid-state memory of the storage system”. Claim 14 recited the limitations of “sub directory owned by an authority”. The terms “so that” and “owned by an authority” is unclear or confusing. Any kind of computing resources or any entity can consider as authority. The terms “so that” and “owned by an authority” does not further distinguish the claim limitations and does not give patentable weight.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and 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 non-statutory subject matter, e.g., claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claims 1-8, non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim of 9-15 and system of claims 16-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include a memory, computer-readable media, processor, storage system/memory.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1, 9 and 16 are adding a directory and any associated subdirectories of the directory, responsive to receiving a request to delete the directory, plurality of nodes etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting adding a directory and any associated subdirectories of the directory can be updated any files or directory, installing new files in a folder, updating files/directory any new locations or rather than previous location/space. The limitations can also interpret as examining files or directory structure. Putting directory into a first set, find any directory which can be updated directory. Examine the directory or the updated again. Any of the sequence or examining first or second time the directory/files can be first or second set.
Thus, the limitations are directed to abstract mental process and can be manually performed by human or they are routine and conventional. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The a memory, computer-readable media, processor, storage system/memory in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element (a memory, computer-readable media, processor, storage system/memory) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recited additional limitations, such that deleting, in a distributed manner across the storage system, contents of the directory according to the list.. These limitations are a context which encompasses deleting files/directory from another files/folder/directory by recursively, randomly, asynchronously or any other order. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to extra solution activity or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g., a client device, non-transitory computer readable medium, system and processor) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Further, the subject matter can also interpret as well-understood, routine and conventional functions (e.g., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document/object, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank….). There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are merely collective functions provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3 recited the limitations of life span and named directory that conceal the directory. These limitations are describing time function and manipulating files associated with name, hide them if needed.. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 4 recited the limitations of without concern for order. These limitations are describing deleting files/directory without follow through any order, independently, recursively, without needing parent before child or child before parent or without follow through attribute or character for a files or directory. The limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claims 5 and 6 recited the limitations of delete the directory and in parallel, deleting data and records of files listed in the list without concern for order. These limitations are describing deleting files/directory in parallel or without follow through any order. The limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claims 7 recited the limitations of deleting the directory with garbage collection. These limitations are describing a conventional garbage collection from a memory or storage devices. The limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claim 8 recited the limitations of nonvolatile random access memory, continue deleting after power loss. The limitations can be any storage devices or deleting during or after power loss. The limitations are mental process.
The claim recited limitations are do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
9. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of US Patent 12,393,353 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 12,393,353 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/299201 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e., claims 1-20) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 12,393,353 B2 (i.e., claims 1-17). Claims of the instant application 19/299207, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 (from US Patent 12,393,353 B2) to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of US Patent 10,678,452 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 10,678,452 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/299201 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e., claims 1-20) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 10,678,452 B2 (i.e., claims 1-20). Claims of the instant application 19/299207, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 (from US Patent 10,678,452 B2) to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of US Patent 11,775,476 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 11,775,476 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/299207 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e., claims 1-20) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 11,775,476 B2 (i.e., claims 1-20). Claims of the instant application 19/299207, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 (from US Patent 11,775,476 B2) to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 35 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 F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761,767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlaender et al. (WO 2004/077207 A2), hereinafter Bodlaender in view of Hayes et al. (US 2015/0355970 A1), hereinafter Hayes.
As for claim 1, Bodlaender teaches a method, comprising:….a directory and any associated subdirectories of the directory to a list in memory of a storage system (see page 10, lines 5 to 8, a user deletes a shared file in his shared folder, column 3, lines 28-32, storage devices across the network),
responsive to receiving a request to delete the directory; and deleting, in a distributed manner across the storage system, contents of the directory according to the list (see page 10, lines 5-8, if a user deletes a shared files in his shared folder. The user can drag files/directories (with files/directories) into this folder, this will cause these to be shared over the network. There is an extra column rejected/deleted, original removed. A user interface option such as a user can download a deleted content again by right clicking a rejected/deleted item and select force download, page 5, lines 17-18, a destroyobject action destroys the specified object when permitted and if the object is a container, all of its child object deleted recursively).
Bodlaender teaches the claimed invention including the limitations of the directory and any associated subdirectories (page 10, line 5-8), but does not explicitly teach the limitations of “adding a directory and any associated subdirectories”. Although, Bodlaender teaches recursively deletion occurs on directory (page 5, lines 17-22). However, in the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches the limitations of “adding a directory and any associated subdirectories” (see [0023], storage capacity can be flexibly added, upgraded, subtracted, recovered and/or reconfigured at each of the non-volatile solid state storages).
Bodlaender and Hayes both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as storage system associated with directory and subdirectory. Sharing files among directory or subdirectory in computing network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hayes’s teaching to Bodlaender’s system for to distribute the user data and metadata associated with the user data throughout the plurality of storage nodes. Thus, the plurality of storage nodes maintain the ability to read the user data, using erasure coding, despite a loss of two of the plurality of storage nodes. The plurality of storage nodes are responsive to achieving a level of redundancy for the redundant copies of the metadata, ability to install one or more storage nodes which may use the power distribution and communication bus (see Hayes, [0003])
As for claim 9,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 9 is a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hayes’s teaching to Bodlaender’s system for to distribute the user data and metadata associated with the user data throughout the plurality of storage nodes. Thus, the plurality of storage nodes maintain the ability to read the user data, using erasure coding, despite a loss of two of the plurality of storage nodes. The plurality of storage nodes is responsive to achieving a level of redundancy for the redundant copies of the metadata, ability to install one or more storage nodes which may use the power distribution and communication bus (see Hayes, [0003])
As for claim 16,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 16 is a system claim and except for the limitations a plurality of storage nodes. Bodlaender teaches such limitations on column 3, lines 28-32, storage devices across the network. Column 5, lines 17-22, e.g., child objects. As such, claim 16 is implementing those steps of claim 1 and claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hayes’s teaching to Bodlaender’s system for to distribute the user data and metadata associated with the user data throughout the plurality of storage nodes. Thus, the plurality of storage nodes maintains the ability to read the user data, using erasure coding, despite a loss of two of the plurality of storage nodes. The plurality of storage nodes is responsive to achieving a level of redundancy for the redundant copies of the metadata, ability to install one or more storage nodes which may use the power distribution and communication bus (see Hayes, [0003])
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
further comprising: delaying for a time span, wherein the adding and the deleting occur upon expiration of the time span, and wherein the contents of the directory are retrievable during the time span (see Bodlaender, page 8, lines 1-5).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
wherein the receiving the request comprises: generating a request to move the directory under a named directory that conceals the directory and contents to a client (see Bodlaender, page 10, lines 19-25).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
wherein deleting in a distributed manner is performed without concern for order (see Bodlaender, page 2, lines 26-28, page 5, lines 17-22).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
further comprising: scheduling a plurality of writes to the storage system, in accordance with determining an amount of memory space made available by the request to delete the directory and in parallel with the deleting (see Bodlaender, page 7, lines 27-34; Also see Hayes, [0023]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
wherein the deleting in a distributed manner across the storage system, further comprises deleting data and records of files listed in the list without concern for order (see Bodlaender, page 2, lines 26-28, page 5, lines 17-22).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
wherein the deleting comprises: coordinating the deleting of the directory with garbage collection in a plurality of solid-state storage devices of the storage system (see Bodlaender, page 5, lines 17-31).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
further comprising: flushing the list from NVRAM (nonvolatile random-access memory) of the storage system to solid-state storage memory of the storage system, responsive to detecting a power loss in the storage system so that the list is recoverable from the solid-state storage memory, to continue the deleting upon restart after the power loss (see Bodlaender, page page 2, lines 29-33, page 4, lines 22-32).
wherein the adding and the deleting are performed by a plurality of authorities in the storage system, with each inode, range of data, and sub-directory owned by an authority.
As to claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Bodlaender and Hayes teaches:
wherein the adding and the deleting are performed by a plurality of authorities in the storage system, with each inode, range of data, and sub-directory owned by an authority (see Bodlaender, page 4, lines 5-12).
Claims 10-13 and 15 correspond in scope to claims 2-6 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 17-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
13. US 20160140201 A1 teaches data storage system that includes multiple zones. Asynchronously propagates the delete operation to other zones in the data storage system along with t.sub.mlu, wherein the delete operation is performed in another zone if the other zone determines that the first data item was last updated before t.sub.mlu. The system can move, merge, repair, compact, erasure-code or garbage-collect the closed extent ([0007], [0092]).
US 20140195762 A1 teaches a storage controller receive a first request to delete a first volume. The first volume may have a first medium as its anchor medium. In response to receiving the first request, the storage controller may remove the link between the first volume and the first medium. Deleted based on time garbage collection operations are performed. The storage controller prioritizes reclamation of other types of free space ahead of deleted volumes ([0013], [0062]).
US 8,700,585 B2 teaches allocate a block for file descriptor. File system reads block bitmap and scans block bitmap, freeing block, marks the free block and proceeds. Upgrades perform in-memory discard work done in memory, file system checks record associated with context to determine optimistic locking retry counter is greater than zero (column 5, lines 10-49, column 6, line 63 to column 7, line 2).
Also see, US 2014/0101373, US 2010/0049755, US 6826570, US 2017/015460, US 7647355, US 8352691, US 2017/0123975, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
14. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application because:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) requires antecedent basis in the Specification or original disclosure for any new language, including terms and phrases, added to the claims;
and because:
b. 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires the Drawings to illustrate or show all claimed features.
Applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty that they think the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made, and must also explain how the amendments avoid the references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c).
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in 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 the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety
as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
15. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96).
Contact Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
06/13/26
Prosecution Insights