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 and/or prosecution history supporting the lexicographic definition in response to this Office action.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no 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.
V. Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s response (“Response”), filed 24 August 2026, has been received and entered into the record.
The Response included a new reissue declaration, an amendment to the claims, and remarks.
Specifically, claims 1-20 were canceled, and claims 21-33, 35, and 36 were amended. Claims 21-38 remain pending in the application.
The amendment is objected to, for the following reasons.
The provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.173(c) require that amendments to the claims be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for changes made to the claims.
While the Office acknowledges receipt of applicant’s explanation of support on page 6 of their response, this explanation consists only of a reference to 8 entire columns of the specification. While the required support may indeed be included, somewhere, within the 8 cited columns, such a broad citation, without any further specificity, fails to comply with the requirement.
In addition, the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.173(g) require that change markings indicate changes made in the claims relative to the issued patent. Claims 21-38 are all new claims relative to the issued patent, and so should be underlined in their entirety. Claim 27, however, includes double brackets surrounding the term “refreshing,” apparently reflecting the omission of this term from the previous version of the claim. However, since all amendments in reissue applications are made relative to the issued patent, and this entire claim is new relative to the issued claims, there should be no change markings indicating omitted subject matter.
The Office further notes that the objection to the preliminary amendment of the specification, filed 4 April 2022, remains unaddressed by applicant’s response.
Specifically, the amendment to the specification fails to comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.173(d)(1), which requires that subject matter to be omitted be enclosed within brackets, and not indicated by strikethrough.
Furthermore, references to related applications should be made by citation to the application number (e.g., “…which is a continuation of application No. 13/211,288, filed Aug. 16, 2011, now U.S. Patent 8,806,160”), and not by citation to the patent number (e.g., “…which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,806,160”). See also MPEP § 1451.
VI. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Response included several arguments. These arguments are addressed in turn below.
Reissue Declaration
Applicant argues that in view of the corrected reissue declaration, the pending object and associated rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251 should be withdrawn.
The Office respectfully disagrees, for the reasons discussed in Section VII below with respect to the defective reissue declaration.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of applicant’s amendment to claims 23, 29, and 35, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendment to claims 21 and 33, these claims no longer invoke the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and so the corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for lack of disclosed structure are withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendment to claims 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, and 36, the remaining pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Applicant notes that amended independent claims 21, 27, and 33 now require that responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table, update the deduplication table without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system. Applicant argues that the rejections of record rely upon McManis to disclose this step, but that McManis discloses that upon finding a match (i.e., the hash is included in the deduplication table), the PBN location of write data block in LUN is returned to the storage system (i.e., there is no update made to the deduplication table). See Response, pages 8-10.
The Office finds this argument persuasive. The pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 are withdrawn.
VII. Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
Specifically, Applicant’s corrected reissue declaration includes a new error statement, that
“Applicant believes that the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming less than patentee had a right to claim in the patent. Patentee seeks to correct the error by introducing new claims 21 through 38 directed to "Mapping in a Storage System". Without correcting the error, the original patent claims (now disclaimed) are unduly narrow.”
This error statement is non-compliant.
The provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(a) require that in the reissue declaration, the applicant must specifically identify at least one error being relied upon as the basis for reissue, in addition to stating that the applicant believes the original patent is wholly or partly inoperable or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than the patentee had the right to claim.
MPEP § 1414(II) notes that “In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.”
Applicant, however, has failed to identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the issued claims that rendered the claims inoperable or invalid (and whose omission from the reissue claims would therefore correct said error), but only states that the patentee claimed less than they had the right to claim, and that the patent claims are unduly narrow. This is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(a).
In addition, it is noted that the error statement provided by applicant is identical to that provided in the reissue declaration of parent reissue application 15/874,387 on 18 August 2021. Such an error statement cannot properly be relied upon to support a child reissue application, because the error has already been corrected by issuance of the parent reissue claims (and thus is no longer an error correctable by reissue).
Finally, reissue declarations must be executed by an official of the applicant having a title that carries apparent authority, or someone who makes a statement of authorization, to act on behalf of the applicant. In this case, the reissue declaration was signed by a person having the title of “Legal Director, IP and Product,” which does not carry such a presumption of authority to act on behalf of applicant Pure Storage, Inc. See MPEP §§ 1414.01 and 325(V).
VIII. Claim Rejections - 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 Objections
Claims 21 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Both claims include, in the last limitation, the term “writing.” These terms should be amended to “write,” for consistency of verb usage within the respective claims (e.g., “configured to…writing” should be “configured to…write”, and “cause a processing device to…writing” should be “cause a processing device to…write.”)
X. 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 22, 23, 28, 29, 34, 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.
Specifically, claims 22, 28, and 34 include the limitation that the determination of whether the hash is included in the deduplication table (and thus all subsequent responsive claimed actions as well) is performed during a post-processing deduplication operation.
However, applicant’s specification discloses that in the embodiment utilizing a post-processing deduplication operation, a query with a hash value may occur for the entire deduplication table, and that “…if a hit is detected during post-processing deduplication (i.e., a duplicate is detected), deduplication may be performed to eliminate one or more of the detected copies.” (emphasis added). See col. 17, line 54 through col. 18, line 2.
While applicant’s disclosure provides support for an embodiment where a new entry is added to the deduplication table when it is determined that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see block 548, Fig. 10, and col. 17, lines 38-48), applicant’s disclosure fails to provide written description support for such a step that occurs during a post-processing deduplication operation, as in claims 22, 28, and 34.
Dependent claims 23, 29, and 35 are likewise rejected.
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 independent claims 21, 27, and 33, these claims include the limitation “the storage system.” There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
Dependent claims 22-26, 28-32, and 34-38 are likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, and 37, these claims include the limitation “the write operation that stores the new deduplication table entry into/in the deduplication table.” There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24, 30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, independent claims 21, 27, and 33 include the limitations of determining whether a hash is included in a deduplication table, and if it is determined that the hash is not included in the deduplication table, creating a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash.
Dependent claims 24, 30, and 36 include the limitation that based on a search (i.e., determining whether a hash is included in a deduplication table), and in response to determining that the hash does not match any of the entries (i.e., if it is determined that the hash is not included in the deduplication table), performing the write operation that stores the new deduplication table entry into the deduplication table (i.e., creating a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash).
Since the dependent claims do not include any features that are not already present in their respective parent claims, they are rejected for failing to further limit their respective parent claims as required under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
XI. 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 –
(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, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,785,644 to Wayne Lam (“Lam”).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Lam teaches a system comprising:
a) a storage device (see disclosure of storage device 142, Fig. 1, and col. 8, lines 43-55); and
b) a processing device, operatively coupled to the storage device (see disclosure of processor 402, Fig. 1, and col. 8, lines 23-29), configured to:
i) receive a request to write data to the storage system (see disclosure that the data set is transmitted by the client machine storing the data to the deduplication appliance, col. 1, lines 55-60);
ii) generate a hash associated with the write request (see disclosure that the deduplication appliance reads each data block and computes a message digest or digital fingerprint, such as a hash value, of each block, col. 6, lines 39-42);
iii) determine whether the hash is included in a deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash values may be stored in the storage device 142, the memory 150, or other memory, in the form of a table, col. 6, lines 53-56; see also disclosure that the resulting hash value is compared to hash values of data blocks already stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 50-52);
iv) responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see disclosure of determining that when the hash value of a data block matches a hash value in the table, then an identical data block is not unique and has already been stored by the deduplication appliance 140, col. 7, lines 3-6), update the deduplication table (see disclosure that in the case of a match of the hash value, the table may be updated to include the location of the client machine 110-A, for example, where the duplicate data block is located, col. 7, lines 8-13) without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system (see disclosure that in the case of a match of the hash value, another copy of the data block need not be transferred to the deduplication appliance 140 and stored, col. 7, lines 6-8); and
v) responsive to determining that the hash is not included in the deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash value is found to be unique, i.e., the hash value is not already stored in the table, col. 6, lines 61-62), create a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash (see disclosure that the hash value of the data block is added to the table, with an indicator, such as a pointer, to the location of the actual data block in the storage, col. 6, lines 65-67) and writing the data contained in the write request to the storage system (see disclosure that the data block is copied from the storage location on the client machine 110-A and stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 62-65).
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, Lam teaches a method comprising:
a) receiving a request to write data to the storage system (see disclosure that the data set is transmitted by the client machine storing the data to the deduplication appliance, col. 1, lines 55-60);
b) generating a hash associated with the write request (see disclosure that the deduplication appliance reads each data block and computes a message digest or digital fingerprint, such as a hash value, of each block, col. 6, lines 39-42);
c) determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash values may be stored in the storage device 142, the memory 150, or other memory, in the form of a table, col. 6, lines 53-56; see also disclosure that the resulting hash value is compared to hash values of data blocks already stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 50-52);
d) responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see disclosure of determining that when the hash value of a data block matches a hash value in the table, then an identical data block is not unique and has already been stored by the deduplication appliance 140, col. 7, lines 3-6), updating the deduplication table (see disclosure that in the case of a match of the hash value, the table may be updated to include the location of the client machine 110-A, for example, where the duplicate data block is located, col. 7, lines 8-13) without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system (see disclosure that in the case of a match of the hash value, another copy of the data block need not be transferred to the deduplication appliance 140 and stored, col. 7, lines 6-8); and
e) responsive to determining that the hash is not included in the deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash value is found to be unique, i.e., the hash value is not already stored in the table, col. 6, lines 61-62), creating a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash (see disclosure that the hash value of the data block is added to the table, with an indicator, such as a pointer, to the location of the actual data block in the storage, col. 6, lines 65-67) and writing the data contained in the write request to the storage system (see disclosure that the data block is copied from the storage location on the client machine 110-A and stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 62-65).
Claim 33
Regarding claim 33, Lam teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to:
a) receive a request to write data to the storage system (see disclosure that the data set is transmitted by the client machine storing the data to the deduplication appliance, col. 1, lines 55-60);
b) generate a hash associated with the write request (see disclosure that the deduplication appliance reads each data block and computes a message digest or digital fingerprint, such as a hash value, of each block, col. 6, lines 39-42);
c) determine whether the hash is included in a deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash values may be stored in the storage device 142, the memory 150, or other memory, in the form of a table, col. 6, lines 53-56; see also disclosure that the resulting hash value is compared to hash values of data blocks already stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 50-52);
d) responsive to determining that the hash is included in the deduplication table (see disclosure of determining that when the hash value of a data block matches a hash value in the table, then an identical data block is not unique and has already been stored by the deduplication appliance 140, col. 7, lines 3-6), update the deduplication table (see disclosure that in the case of a match of the hash value, the table may be updated to include the location of the client machine 110-A, for example, where the duplicate data block is located, col. 7, lines 8-13) without writing data contained in the write request to the storage system (see disclosure that in the case of a match of the hash value, another copy of the data block need not be transferred to the deduplication appliance 140 and stored, col. 7, lines 6-8); and
e) responsive to determining that the hash is not included in the deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash value is found to be unique, i.e., the hash value is not already stored in the table, col. 6, lines 61-62), create a new entry in the deduplication table that includes the hash (see disclosure that the hash value of the data block is added to the table, with an indicator, such as a pointer, to the location of the actual data block in the storage, col. 6, lines 65-67) and writing the data contained in the write request to the storage system (see disclosure that the data block is copied from the storage location on the client machine 110-A and stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 62-65).
Claims 22, 28, and 34
Regarding claims 22, 28, and 34, Lam additionally teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively, wherein determining whether the hash is included in a deduplication table is performed during a post-processing deduplication operation (see disclosure that the deduplication process can be dynamic, where the process is conducted while the data is arriving at the deduplication appliance, or delayed, where the arriving data is temporarily stored and then analyzed by the deduplication appliance, col. 1, lines 52-55).
Claims 24, 30, and 36
Regarding claims 24, 30, and 36, Lam teaches the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively, further configured to based on a search (see disclosure that the resulting hash value is compared to hash values of data blocks already stored on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 50-52) and in response to determining that the hash does not match any of the entries in the deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash value is found to be unique, i.e., the hash value is not already stored in the table, col. 6, lines 61-62), perform the write operation that stores the new deduplication table entry into the deduplication table (see disclosure that the hash value of the data block is added to the table, with an indicator, such as a pointer, to the location of the actual data block in the storage, col. 6, lines 65-67).
Claims 25, 31, and 37
Regarding claims 25, 31, and 37, Lam teaches the 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 deduplication appliance 140 can be configured to backup data in accordance with backup policies that specify files, directories, or entire storage devices to be backed up at a specific time and frequency, which enables efficient use of the resources of the deduplication appliance, col. 9, lines 31-47).
Claims 26, 32, and 38
Regarding claims 26, 32, and 38, Lam teaches the 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 disclosure that the table storing hash values correlates hash values, the location on the client machine 110-A where the corresponding data block came from, and the location on the deduplication appliance 140 where the data block is stored, such as the storage location on the storage device 142, col. 6, lines 56-61).
XII. 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 23, 29, and 35 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,785,644 to Wayne Lam (“Lam”) as applied to claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,650,228 to Roderick B. Wideman et al. (“Wideman”).
Claims 23, 29, and 35
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 35, Lam teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium substantially as claimed.
Lam does not explicitly teach a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the post-processing deduplication operation is performed during a garbage collection operation.
Wideman, however, teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the post-processing deduplication operation is performed during a garbage collection operation (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.
Claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,785,644 to Wayne Lam (“Lam”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,437,865 to Austin Clements et al. (“Clements”).
With respect to claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38, Lam discloses the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as claimed. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) above.
To the extent one could argue that Lam fails to explicitly disclose the receipt of a request to write data to the storage system, Clements teaches a deduplication operation that includes the claimed receipt of a request to write data to a storage system (see disclosure that each block is checked for possible matches as part of a write operation, col. 4, line 61 through col. 5, line 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to perform a data deduplication operation, such as is disclosed by Lam, in response to the receipt of a request to write data to the storage system, because Clements teaches that due to the large number of storage blocks typically handled by a storage system, it is not practical to compare every possible pair of blocks for possible duplicates, but since new duplicates only (or at least primarily) arise in the context of write operations, deduplication candidates can be identified by tracking write operations, col. 4, lines 61-66).
Claims 23, 29, and 35 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,785,644 to Wayne Lam (“Lam”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,437,865 to Austin Clements et al. (“Clements”) as applied to claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,650,228 to Roderick B. Wideman et al. (“Wideman”).
Claims 23, 29, and 35
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 35, Lam and Clements teach a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium substantially as claimed.
Lam and Clements do not explicitly teach a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the post-processing deduplication operation is performed during a garbage collection operation.
Wideman, however, teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the post-processing deduplication operation is performed during a garbage collection operation (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.
XIII. Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights