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
Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-8, 11-15 & 19-25 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10 & 16 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 & 17-25 are pending.
The rejections under § 112(b) have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the limitations of the newly amended independent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees and provides an updated rejection mapping provided below, particularly in light of the Shoolman reference.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a motivation to combine the references is described for the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
(i) Shoolman et al. (US 2012/0079484 A1, hereinafter “Shoolman”), in view of
(ii) Sproat et al. (US 11,216,316 B1, hereinafter “Sproat”), and further in view of
(iii) Stone et al. (US 2022/0138179 A1, hereinafter “Stone”).
Claim 1. Shoolman teaches: A computer-implemented method for garbage collection of redundant partitions in distributed data management systems [Applicant’s statement of intended use in the preamble is acknowledged and the terms incorporated into the body of the claim are discussed below], the method comprising:
storing data across a set of nodes in the distributed data management systems, the data being stored using one or more partitions and the data and the one or more partitions being replicated across the set of nodes (par.0068, storing objects in a partition that is replicated across multiple nodes).
determining, at a first node of the set of nodes, a first partition is stale by identifying a set of access metrics for the first partition (par.0068, storing objects in a partition that is replicated across multiple nodes), wherein the first partition includes data stored at the first node of the set of nodes (par.0068, storing objects in a partition that is replicated across multiple nodes)
determining a freshness value for the first partition based on the set of access metrics (par.0112, objects that are not accessed by the application for a period of time [staleness] are automatically deleted. Par.0116, counting the elapsed time (metrics) since the objects were last access, if this time (time since last access) is above the predefined object access expiry time (threshold), the in-memory engine can be instructed to delete the object. Pars.0118-0125, describing the formula and elements for the FTWU (frequency-time-weighted use) eviction policy), wherein the freshness value is determined by computing a function of usage statistics of the first partition, conditions of the first partition, or attributes of the first partition (par.0112, objects that are not accessed by the application for a period of time [staleness] are automatically deleted. Par.0116, counting the elapsed time (metrics) since the objects were last access, if this time (time since last access) is above the predefined object access expiry time (threshold), the in-memory engine can be instructed to delete the object. Pars.0118-0125, describing the formula and elements for the FTWU (frequency-time-weighted use) eviction policy), and
comparing the freshness value for the first partition with a freshness threshold, wherein the freshness threshold is dynamically generated based on the usage statistics (par.0112, objects that are not accessed by the application for a period of time [staleness] are automatically deleted. Par.0116, counting the elapsed time (metrics) since the objects were last access, if this time (time since last access) is above the predefined object access expiry time (threshold), the in-memory engine can be instructed to delete the object. Pars.0118-0125, describing the formula and elements for the FTWU (frequency-time-weighted use) eviction policy).
Shoolman does not explicitly teach:
marking the first partition for deletion, the first partition being marked for deletion locally at the first node.
On the other hand, Sproat teaches: marking the first partition for deletion, the first partition being marked for deletion locally at the first node (col 7 lines 31-35, marking an object for deletion based on inactivity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date to incorporate the marker of Sproat to the data deletion method of Shoolman to produce an expected result of marking the first partition for deletion, the first partition being marked for deletion locally at the first node. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify objects candidate for deletion and prevent access to these objects.
The combination of Shoolman and Sproat does not explicitly teach:
determining a set of deletion votes for the first partition, each node of the set of nodes being associated with a deletion vote of the set of deletion votes; and
determining a deletion decision for the first partition on the first node based on the set of deletion votes.
On the other hand, Stone teaches: determining a set of deletion votes for the first partition, each node of the set of nodes being associated with a deletion vote of the set of deletion votes (par.0042, consensus vote is taken to remove document from the block chain with consensus vote such as 51% vote to delete).
determining a deletion decision for the first partition on the first node based on the set of deletion votes (par.0042, when the consensus vote to delete is achieved, a marker appended to the front of the document name in hash code file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date to incorporate the vote of Stone to the data deletion method of Shoolman to produce an expected result of delete partition based on nodes votes. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prevent deleting data that is still needed by other nodes.
Claim 5. The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone teaches the method of claim 1. Stone further teaches: wherein the determining the deletion decision further comprises:
determining a threshold number of nodes of the set of nodes are associated with a positive deletion vote and deleting the first partition from the first node (par.0026, consensus requires 51 % of the nodes to confirm the validity of a document. Par.0041, the system collects votes from the nodes and determine count of accepted and rejected votes and objects are deleted based on the number of votes).
Claim 6. The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone teaches the method of claim 1. Stone further teaches: wherein the determining the deletion decision further comprises:
determining a number of nodes associated with a positive deletion vote is below a deletion threshold (par.0041, requiring no less than 3 nodes to confirm update (deletion), if less than 3 then the deletion is discarded)
and reverting the deletion marking for the first partition on the first node (par.0041, requiring no less than 3 nodes to confirm update (deletion), if less than 3 then the deletion is discarded. Par.0051, the vote results are tallied and if no consensus vote is obtained, then the update (deletion) is discarded).
Claim 24. The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone teaches the method of claim 1. Shoolman further teaches: wherein the freshness value is calculated as selected from the group consisting of an exponential decay of access counts, access counts over time, access counts since a last access of the first partition, access counts of the first partition or replicas of the first partition on other nodes of the set of nodes, and combinations thereof (Pars.0118-0125, describing the formula and elements for the FTWU (frequency-time-weighted use) eviction policy).
Claims 8, 12, 13 & 25 recite similar limitations to those recited in claims 1, 5, 6 & 24, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 15, 18 & 19 recite similar limitations to those recited in claims 1, 5 & 6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
(i) Shoolman et al. (US 2012/0079484 A1, hereinafter “Shoolman”), in view of
(ii) Sproat et al. (US 11,216,316 B1, hereinafter “Sproat”), in view of
(iii) Stone et al. (US 2022/0138179 A1, hereinafter “Stone”), and further in view of
(iv) Frerking et al. (US 2018/0246903 A1, hereinafter “Frerking”).
Claim 4. The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone teaches the method of claim 2. wherein the determining the set of deletion votes further comprises:
transmitting a deletion indicator from the first node to a remaining subset of nodes of the set of nodes (par.0041, the update block (delete) is broadcast to known nodes providing a message requesting a vote whether to accept or reject the update block) and
receiving the set of deletion votes from the remaining subset of nodes (par.0041, the system collects votes from the nodes).
The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone does not explicitly teach:
each node of the remaining subset of nodes comparing the freshness value for the first partition to a freshness value for a local partition associated with the first partition.
On the other hand, Frerking teaches: each node of the remaining subset of nodes comparing the freshness value for the first partition to a freshness value for a local partition associated with the first partition (Fig. 10, par.0084, if timestamp at local server is close to expire (freshness), a request is sent to the remote server, and if the timestamp at remote server is expired (freshness) then the corresponding record at both the local and remote servers are deleted. Par.0138 the timestamp is expired when the associated time to live (TTL) has been exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date to incorporate the timestamp expiration of Frerking to the data deletion method of Shoolman to produce an expected result of comparing data freshness of first and second nodes. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prevent deleting data is still needed by other nodes.
Claim 7. The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone teaches the method of claim 1. the combination does not explicitly teach: further comprising:
analyzing, by each node of the set of nodes, the one or more partitions stored locally on the node to determine staleness of the one or more partitions.
On the other hand, Frerking teaches: analyzing, by each node of the set of nodes, the one or more partitions stored locally on the node to determine staleness of the one or more partitions (par.0014, each server of the plurality of servers is configured to compare (analyzing) timestamp associated with database record to determine expiration (staleness)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date to incorporate the timestamp expiration of Frerking to the data deletion method of Shoolman to produce an expected result of analyzing data staleness by each node. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to delete expired data and reclaim storage space.
Claims 11 & 14 recite similar limitations to those recited in claims 4 & 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 17 & 20 recite similar limitations to those recited in claims 4 & 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
(i) Shoolman et al. (US 2012/0079484 A1, hereinafter “Shoolman”), in view of
(ii) Sproat et al. (US 11,216,316 B1, hereinafter “Sproat”), in view of
(iii) Stone et al. (US 2022/0138179 A1, hereinafter “Stone”), in view of
(iv) Moser (US 2007/0294480 A1, hereinafter “Moser”), and further in view of
(v) Fisher et al. (US 2015/0169442 A1, hereinafter “Fisher”).
Claim 21. The combination of Shoolman, Sproat and Stone teaches the method of claim 1.
Shoolman further teaches: wherein the set of access metrics includes access counts, last access time (par.0116, mechanism that counts the elapsed time (access counts) since each object was last accessed (last access time)).
Sproat further teaches: wherein the set of access metrics includes replication of data of the first partition to other nodes, and number of nodes to which the first partition is cached. (col 7 lines 31-40, deletion of object based on determination that the object can be retrieved from other source if needed in the future). usage statistics (col 9 lines 15-20, the statistics includes the object has not been accessed for longer than a defined access time).
Sproat teaches determining to remove an object based on inference that the object has not been accessed for a defined amount of time (col 6 lines 48-50) but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of access metrics includes requests or queries for the first partition, requests or queries for the first partition within a specified time period, hits per time period, the usage statistics, query alteration.
On the other hand, Moser teaches: wherein the set of access metrics includes requests or queries for the first partition, requests or queries for the first partition within a specified time period, hits per time period, the usage statistics (par.0010, par.0037, par.0047, counting the number of accesses (queries, hits) within a time period to determine deletion of object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date to incorporate the access count of Moser to the data deletion method of Shoolman to produce an expected result of determining access metrics based on queries within period of time. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to delete expired data and reclaim storage space.
The combination does not explicitly teach: wherein the set of access metrics includes query alteration.
On the other hand, Fisher teaches: wherein the set of access metrics includes query alteration (par.0046, determining that staleness of a block exceeds a staleness threshold based on time since last write operation (query alteration) exceeds a threshold time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date to incorporate the write operation of Fisher to the data deletion method of Shoolman to produce an expected result of set of access metrics includes query alteration. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to delete objects that are stale based on how often they change.
Claims 22 & 23 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 21 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 03/10/2026