DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 17/712,841 (“’841 Reissue Application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 4 April 2022. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a continuation reissue of reissue application 15/874,387, filed 18 January 2018, now U.S. reissue patent RE49,011, issued 5 April 2022. The instant application is also a reissue of U.S. Patent 9,239,688 (“’688 patent”) titled “MAPPING IN A STORAGE SYSTEM”, which issued on 19 January 2016 to John Colgrove et al. with claims 1-20 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘688 patent was filed on 11 August 2014 and assigned U.S. patent application number 14/456,583 (“’583 application”). The ‘688 patent is currently assigned to PURE Storage, Inc.
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘688 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘583 application is a continuation of application 13/211,288, filed 16 August 2011, now U.S. patent 8,806,160.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘688 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a priority date of 16 August 2011.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is prior to March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions do not apply. Instead, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions will apply.
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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
If applicant intended lexicographic definitions that have not been identified as such by the examiner, they are asked to note the term and the location in the specification or prosecution history supporting the lexicographic definition in response to this Office action.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds several instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (e.g., “computer system”, claim 21; “program instructions”, claim 33) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“generating a hash” in claims 21 and 33;
“refreshing the deduplication table” in claims 21 and 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“generating a hash” is disclosed at col. 10, lines 11-16. Therein, it is disclosed that hash functions such as MD5 and SHA, or otherwise, can be used to calculate the corresponding hash value. Therefore, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as “an MD5 hash function, an SHA hash function, or other hash function known at the time of the invention.”
The Office has reviewed applicant’s disclosure but failed to locate any corresponding structure for the functional limitation “refreshing a deduplication table.” Therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is warranted. See Section IX below.
In the absence of a disclosed structure/algorithm for carrying out the claimed “refreshing a deduplication table,” the Office will interpret this limitation as analogous to applicant’s disclosed action to be taken responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table, specifically, the action taken at step 548 of the flowchart illustrated in Fig. 5B, adding a new entry to the deduplication table to reflect the new write.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs), filed 4 April 2022 and 7 June 2024, have been received and entered into the record. Since the Information Disclosure Statements comply with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
It is noted that several foreign language documents were included in the 2024 IDS. In these cases, the Office has annotated the entries on the 1449 where applicable to indicate the degree to which the document has been considered (limited to English language disclosures).
See attached forms PTO-1449.
VI. Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 4 April 2022, has been received and entered into the record. The preliminary amendment included amendments to the specification and claims.
Specifically, claims 1-20 are marked as “Withdrawn,” and new claims 21-38 have been added. Claims 21-38 are now pending.
The amendment is objected to, however.
With respect to the claim amendment, claims 1-20 have status indicators of “Withdrawn.” However, the claims were statutorily disclaimed during prosecution of parent reissue application 15/874,387. The status markings should instead be “Canceled.”
With respect to the specification, the amendment is objected to, because it fails to comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.173(c), (d)(1) and (g).
Specifically, any amendment in a reissue application must be accompanied by an explanation of support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims, whether insertions or deletions. No such statement has been submitted. See MPEP § 1453(II).
Also, in a reissue application, subject matter to be omitted must be enclosed within brackets, and not be indicated by strikethrough as would be proper in a utility application whose amendments are subject to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.121.
In addition, amendments in a reissue application must be made relative to the issued patent.
VII. Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The error statement supplied in the reissue declaration makes reference to original claims 1, 14, and 20. These claims, however, have been disclaimed and no longer exist in the ‘688 patent.
In addition, the error statement refers to unnecessarily requiring the use of a “table”, and that the new claims use the more general term “data structure.” However, there is no such term used in the new claims presented in the instant reissue application.
VIII. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 21-38 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
IX. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23, 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 35, these claims include the limitation that the post-processing deduplication operation is a garbage collection operation. However, applicant’s disclosure states only that a query with a hash value may occur during a post-processing deduplication operation, such as an operation occurring during garbage collection (see col. 17, lines 60-63). This disclosure does not establish that the post-processing deduplication operation is a garbage collection operation.
The fact that the post-processing deduplication operation occurs during garbage collection does not mean that the operation is a garbage collection operation.
See also related rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 21 and 38, these claims include the functional limitation “refreshing the deduplication table,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s disclosure does not include the term “refresh,” and so there is no disclosure of the structure (i.e., algorithm) that performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In addition, with respect to claims 21, 27, and 33, these claims all include the limitation “refreshing the deduplication table.” However, applicant’s disclosure does not include this language, rendering the claims indefinite.
Applicant may be referring to the actions of step 548 in the flowchart of Fig. 5B, described at col. 17, lines 43-47, whereby a new entry is added to the deduplication table. However, the use of the term “refreshing” in the context of the deduplication table in the claims does not clearly refer to this action.
Dependent claims 22-26, 28-32, and 34-38 are likewise rejected.
With respect to claims 24, 30, and 36, these claims include the term “a subsequent search.” However, there is no antecedent basis for this term, since there is no previous claimed instance of a “search.” This renders the claims (and dependent claims 25, 31, and 37) indefinite.
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 35, these claims include the limitation that the post-processing deduplication operation is a garbage collection operation. However, deduplication and garbage collection are distinct operations.
Specifically, deduplication is an operation that reduces the amount of storage required by replacing redundant data with a reference to a single stored copy of the data1. Garbage collection, on the other hand, involves the physical deletion of garbage such as records that have been deleted logically but remain physically in the database (i.e., records no longer referenced)2. While deduplication and garbage collection both relate to reducing storage requirements, they are not the same operation.
Since claims 23, 29, and 35 include the limitation that the post-processing deduplication operation is a garbage collection operation, the claims are rendered indefinite.
X. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 21, 24-27, 30-33, and 36-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,734,603 to Charles McManis (“McManis”).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, McManis teaches a computer system comprising a data storage medium, the computer system configured for:
a) receiving a request to write data to the storage system (see step 1002 “receive write operation and write data”, Fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 59-63);
b) generating a hash associated with the write request (see step 1004 “compute hash key from content of write data block”, Fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 63-67);
c) determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table (see step 1006 “compare computed ash key with hash keys of entries in mapping table”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 1-3);
d) responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see step 1008 “Match?”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 4-6), refreshing the deduplication table without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system (see step 1016 “return PBN location of write data block in LUN to storage system”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 8-13); and
e) responsive to determining that the hash is not included in the deduplication table (see step 1008 “Match?”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 4-6), creating a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash and writing the data contained in the write request to the storage system (see step 1014 “store write data block in next available PBN location in LUN”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 13-18).
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, McManis teaches a method for use in a storage system, the method comprising:
a) receiving a request to write data to the storage system (see step 1002 “receive write operation and write data”, Fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 59-63);
b) generating a hash associated with the write request (see step 1004 “compute hash key from content of write data block”, Fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 63-67);
c) determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table (see step 1006 “compare computed ash key with hash keys of entries in mapping table”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 1-3);
d) responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see step 1008 “Match?”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 4-6), refreshing the deduplication table without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system (see step 1016 “return PBN location of write data block in LUN to storage system”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 8-13); and
e) responsive to determining that the hash is not included in the deduplication table (see step 1008 “Match?”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 4-6), creating a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash and writing the data contained in the write request to the storage system (see step 1014 “store write data block in next available PBN location in LUN”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 13-18).
Claim 33
Regarding claim 33, McManis teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions executable by a processor for:
a) receiving a request to write data to the storage system (see step 1002 “receive write operation and write data”, Fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 59-63);
b) generating a hash associated with the write request (see step 1004 “compute hash key from content of write data block”, Fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 63-67);
c) determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table (see step 1006 “compare computed ash key with hash keys of entries in mapping table”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 1-3);
d) responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see step 1008 “Match?”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 4-6), refreshing the deduplication table without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system (see step 1016 “return PBN location of write data block in LUN to storage system”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 8-13); and
e) responsive to determining that the hash is not included in the deduplication table (see step 1008 “Match?”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 4-6), creating a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash and writing the data contained in the write request to the storage system (see step 1014 “store write data block in next available PBN location in LUN”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 13-18).
Claims 24, 30, and 36
Regarding claims 24, 30, and 36, McManis teaches the computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively, further configured for based on a subsequent search and in response to determining that the hash does not match any of the entries in the deduplication table, performing the write operation that stores the new deduplication table entry into the deduplication table (see step 1014 “store write data block in next available PBN location in LUN”, Fig. 10, and col. 15, lines 13-18; see also creation of a new entry 910 in mapping table 900, illustrated in Fig. 9, and col. 14, lines 38-58).
Claims 25, 31, and 37
Regarding claims 25, 31, and 37, McManis teaches the computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively, wherein performing the write operation that stores the new deduplication table entry in the deduplication table is combined with other write operations (see disclosure that remote storage operations can occur in parallel to allow aggregation of resources, the parallel operation performing content addressable storage computations associated with the write operations on each of the one or more remote storage arrays, claim 21).
Claims 26, 32, and 38
Regarding claims 26, 32, and 38, McManis teaches the computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively, wherein the new deduplication table entry is a hash-to-physical pointer mapping (see illustration of mapping table 900 [i.e., the claimed deduplication table], wherein each entry includes a hash key 912 and corresponding PBN pointer 914 [i.e., the claimed hash-to-physical pointer mapping], Fig. 9, and col. 14, lines 10-15).
XI. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 22, 23, 28, 29, 34, 35 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,734,603 to Charles McManis (“McManis”) as applied to claims 21, 24-27, 30-33, and 36-38 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,650,228 to Roderick B. Wideman et al. (“Wideman”).
Claims 22, 28, and 34
Regarding claims 22, 28, and 34, McManis teaches a computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium substantially as claimed.
McManis does not explicitly teach a computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table is performed during a post-processing deduplication operation.
Wideman, however, teaches a computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table is performed during a post-processing deduplication operation (see disclosure that deduplication can be performed inline or offline, and that offline deduplication is not performed in the data path, but is instead performed after the data is transmitted, col. 2, lines 45-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform deduplication as a post-processing operation, since this would improve performance by having the deduplication process outside of the data path, and so would not slow the transmission of data, col. 2, lines 45-60).
Claims 23, 29, and 35
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 35, McManis teaches a computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium substantially as claimed.
McManis does not explicitly teach a computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the post-processing deduplication operation is a garbage collection operation.
Wideman, however, teaches a computer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the post-processing deduplication operation is a garbage collection operation3 (see disclosure that over time, the object store may contain unreferenced objects, and it is desirable to reclaim that space for use by new data objects, col. 3, lines 4-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform a post-processing deduplication operation during a garbage collection operation, since in the case where all references to an object have been deleted, there is no longer a need to maintain a valid representation of the data object in storage, and garbage collection is the process for reclaiming such storage (see col. 3, lines 4-15), and furthermore because deduplication and garbage collection both relate to reducing storage requirements, and so are complementary operations.
XII. Conclusion
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘688 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘688 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘688 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Michael Fuelling /MF/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
18 May 2026
1 Powell, Phill et al. “What is data deduplication?”, www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-deduplication, 3 January 2024.
2 IEEE “IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms”, Seventh Edition, December 2000.
3 As discussed above in the context of the rejection of claims 23, 29, and 35 as indefinite, a post-processing operation is not the same as a garbage collection operation. Therefore, the Office will interpret this limitation as described in applicant’s specification at col. 17, lines 60-63, that the post-processing deduplication operation occurs during a garbage collection operation.
Prosecution Insights