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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The following is the Applicant’s argument and Examiner’s response:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner does not agree with Applicant since Zhang discloses Zhang discloses splitting a data object into multiple portions at boundaries within the data object, the boundaries providing separators between processable units of the data object in accordance with a type of the data object (i.e., “embodiments the new data object may be split into the data segments by the client computer system or other data source from which the new data object originates, and the segments may then be transmitted to the deduplication software 50”(0049) and Examiner asserts that a type of the data object is the new data object originates or data source or client computer system. Further, “n various embodiments any desired algorithm or technique may be used to split the new data object into segments or identify the boundaries of the segments. In some embodiments the new data object may be split into fixed-size segments, e.g., so that each of the segments is the same fixed size….In other embodiments the new data object may be split into variable-sized segments, e.g., so that different segments can have different sizes. A variable-sized splitting algorithm may be designed to split different data objects that vary from each other only slightly into segments such that one or more of the segments are common to both of the data objects.”(0050) and Examiner asserts kind of type of object such as fixed size segment or variable-sized segment. For example, if the type of the data object is variable sized then using variable -sized splitting algorithm). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s argument since Zhang discloses adding data and/or metadata to a portion of the portions so that the portion can be accessed as an independent object having the same type as the data object (i.e., “When a new data object is added, the deduplication storage system may split the data object into a plurality of data segments and check whether an identical copy of each segment is already stored in a pool of data segments…The deduplication storage system may also store metadata for the new data object which indicates which data segments are included in the data object and where they can be found.”(0021)). There are data segments are included in the data object are added to portion of the portions. Further, Zhang discloses metadata is add in the individual segment themselves (i.e., “ so that separate reference information is kept for each individual segment which specifies which data objects reference that segment”(0022) or “a container may logically include a set of segments, but the segment data may not be stored in space that is allocated for the container itself, but instead the data for each segment may be stored in space that is individually allocated for each segment. For example, each segment may be stored as an independent data structure, and a given container can be implemented as information specifying a list of the segments that are included in that container (as well as possibly also specifying other metadata about the container, such as a name of the container, a list of data objects that reference the container, etc). Thus, in some embodiments the segments may be stored independently of the containers while still being logically included in the containers’(0044)). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image3.png
244
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
100
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s argument (see Examiner responses the Applicant’s argument above.
Applicant argued with the claim 23, Examiner does not agree (see Examiner response above).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C 112 are not persuasive since “can be” rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable, mean can be or can not be happen. Therefore, the 35U.S.C 112 is firmed.
Applicant stated “Applicant acknowledges the rejection but has chosen to wait until all pending claims are otherwise in allowable condition before proceeding with any terminal disclaimer”. Therefore, obvious the double patenting is firmed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the phrase "can be" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "can be"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 22-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140244599 A1).
With respect to claims 1, and 22-23 Zhang et al. discloses a method of managing data objects (i.e., n various embodiments any desired algorithm or technique may be used to split the new data object into segments or identify the boundaries of the segments.”(0050)) comprising:
splitting a data object into multiple portions at boundaries within the data object (i.e., n various embodiments any desired algorithm or technique may be used to split the new data object into segments or identify the boundaries of the segments.”(0050)), the boundaries providing separators between processable units of the data object in accordance with a type of the data object splitting a data object into multiple portions at boundaries within the data object (i.e., n various embodiments any desired algorithm or technique may be used to split the new data object into segments or identify the boundaries of the segments.”(0050) and “The deduplication storage system may split data objects into segments and store the segments. A plurality of data segment containers may be maintained. Each of the containers may include two or more of the data segments. Maintaining the containers may include maintaining a respective logical size of each container.”(abstract) and same container is same type as claimed invention or “In some embodiments the deduplication software may add or assign all the segments of the data object to the same container, e.g., so that they are all logically included in the same container.”(0042) and (i.e., “embodiments the new data object may be split into the data segments by the client computer system or other data source from which the new data object originates, and the segments may then be transmitted to the deduplication software 50”(0049) and Examiner asserts that a type of the data object is the new data object originates or data source or client computer system. Further, “n various embodiments any desired algorithm or technique may be used to split the new data object into segments or identify the boundaries of the segments. In some embodiments the new data object may be split into fixed-size segments, e.g., so that each of the segments is the same fixed size….In other embodiments the new data object may be split into variable-sized segments, e.g., so that different segments can have different sizes. A variable-sized splitting algorithm may be designed to split different data objects that vary from each other only slightly into segments such that one or more of the segments are common to both of the data objects.”(0050) and Examiner asserts kind of type of object such as fixed size segment or variable-sized segment. For example, if the type of the data object is variable sized then using variable -sized splitting algorithm), said splitting including scanning, by a gateway computing device (i.e., “The deduplication storage system may split data objects into segments and store the segments.”(abstract) and it is inherent the deduplication storage scan or access all object data to detects duplication ), the data object to identify the boundaries ((i.e., n various embodiments any desired algorithm or technique may be used to split the new data object into segments or identify the boundaries of the segments.”(0050)) );
transforming the portions into segments that provide individually processable units of a same type as the type of the data object (i.e., “adding the segment to the container may include modifying the metadata for the segment to indicate that the segment is included in the container, e.g., by a name or other ID of the container to the segment's metadata.”, (0054) and modify the metadata for the segment is transforming the portion into segments of claimed invention and container is portion of claimed invention and Examiner asserts metadata is information of portion of claimed invention ), said transforming including adding data and/or metadata to a portion of the portions so that the portion can be accessed as independent object having the same type as the data object (i.e., “adding the segment to the container may include modifying the metadata for the segment to indicate that the segment is included in the container, e.g., by a name or other ID of the container to the segment's metadata.”, (0054) and “The data structure may not include the actual data of the data object (as this is stored in the data segments), but may include metadata specifying which data segments make up the data object….the deduplication software 50 may add information regarding the segment to the data object's metadata. The information regarding the segment may include the fingerprint or other ID of the segment, the name or other ID of the container that includes the segment, the size of the segment”(0056) and modifying is adding data or metadata as claimed invention or step 420 to add information regarding the segment to the metadata for the new data object so Examiner assert when splitting the object to each segment and transform or adding the information (data as claimed) into the segment (“information regarding the segment”)); and
distributing the segments among multiple computing nodes of a storage cluster for protected storage therein (fig. 3 at step 431 show update logical sizes and reference metadata for the container referenced by the new data object and “wherein said storing the data objects includes receiving a plurality of data segments of the data objects and storing the data segments on one or more storage devices;”(claim 1) and one or more storage device as computing nodes as claimed inventon).
With respect to claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses wherein transforming the portions into segments includes adding or modifying metadata of a set of the portions ((i.e., “adding the segment to the container may include modifying the metadata for the segment to indicate that the segment is included in the container, e.g., by a name or other ID of the container to the segment's metadata.”, (0054) and “The data structure may not include the actual data of the data object (as this is stored in the data segments), but may include metadata specifying which data segments make up the data object….the deduplication software 50 may add information regarding the segment to the data object's metadata. The information regarding the segment may include the fingerprint or other ID of the segment, the name or other ID of the container that includes the segment, the size of the segment”(0056) and modifying is adding data or metadata as claimed invention or step 420 to add information regarding the segment to the metadata for the new data object so Examiner assert when splitting the object to each segment and transform or adding the information (data as claimed) into the segment (“information regarding the segment”)).
With respect to claim 25, Zhang et al. discloses wherein adding the data and/or metadata to the portion includes storing the data and/or metadata within the segment formed from the portion (i.e., “When a new data object is added, the deduplication storage system may split the data object into a plurality of data segments and check whether an identical copy of each segment is already stored in a pool of data segments…The deduplication storage system may also store metadata for the new data object which indicates which data segments are included in the data object and where they can be found.”(0021) and “ so that separate reference information is kept for each individual segment which specifies which data objects reference that segment”(0022) or “a container may logically include a set of segments, but the segment data may not be stored in space that is allocated for the container itself, but instead the data for each segment may be stored in space that is individually allocated for each segment. For example, each segment may be stored as an independent data structure, and a given container can be implemented as information specifying a list of the segments that are included in that container (as well as possibly also specifying other metadata about the container, such as a name of the container, a list of data objects that reference the container, etc). Thus, in some embodiments the segments may be stored independently of the containers while still being logically included in the containers’(0044))..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3, 5, 8-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140244599 A1) and in view of Cook et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,700,711 B1)
With respect to claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses all limitations recited at claim 1 except identifying header metadata of the data object and adding the header metadata or a modified version thereof to each of the set of portions, However, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein adding or modifying the metadata includes identifying header metadata of the data object and adding the header metadata or a modified version thereof to each of the set of portions (i.e., “Each erasure segment also contains an additional header 280 containing metadata concerning the other segments in the erasure set, such as the unique identifier of its manifest, and the unique identifiers of all of the data and parity segments, in order. Each segment's own unique identifier will identify its place in its set of siblings. The header for each segment will also include system metadata such as the volume identifier where the segment is located, and the likely volume identifier for the next segment of the erasure set (the volume hint”(col. 7, lines 20-30)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to identifying header metadata of the data object and adding the header metadata or modifying version thereof to each of the set of portions in order to copying fast and request less amounts of memory or storage for the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Cook et al. (col. 1, lines 35-40). Further, both references teach the same field such as partition, therefore, the combination will be successful.
With respect to claim 5, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein adding or modifying the metadata includes identifying footer metadata in one of the portions and adding the footer metadata or a modified version thereof to each of the set of portions (i.e., “The header for each segment will also include system metadata such as the volume identifier where the segment is located, and the likely volume identifier for the next segment of the erasure set (the volume hint). For example, segment k4 includes the volume identifier where the segment k5 is located, segment p2 includes the volume identifier were the segment k1 is located, etc. ’(col. 7, lines 25-32) and “Section 312 of the manifest provides the name of the erasure coding algorithm used and its version number”(col. 7, lines 37-39) or “This new version of the object then replaces the previous current version of the object to become the active current object version, that is, from that time on, the object storage will return data from the new current version for any read request while that version is still the current version”(col. 22, lines 55-60)). (same motivation above)
With respect to claim 8, Cook et al. discloses wherein the data object is a video file or stream that includes multiple frames (i.e., “A method as recited in claim 1 wherein said append data is stored within said object storage as a replicated stream and said erasure-coding part manifest includes at least one erasure set that identifies said append data with a single unique identifier.”(claim 4)), and wherein splitting the data object includes (i) identifying an i-frame in the video file or stream (i.e., “Such other collections of data include frames or clips from digital audio or video streams”(col. 4, lines 32-35)) (ii) defining an end of a current segment as a frame located one frame prior to the identified i-frame (), and (iii) defining a start of a next segment as the identified i-frame (i.e., “a first column of the index lists the unique identifier of the object, a second column lists at which sector the stream starts and a third column lists either the length of the stream or the sector in which it ends.’(col. 6, lines 9-14) and “references to the starting and finishing points of the data in that erasure set are adjusted so that a split appears at the point corresponding to the desired insertion”(col. 12, lines 42-45), col. 19, lines 27-30). (same motivation above).
With respect to claim 9, Cook et al. discloses further comprising, prior to splitting the data object, reading a set of regions of the data object and identifying the type of the data object based on the set of regions (i.e., “different objects may be assigned different erasure codings. In the case of very large objects, several such erasure sets may be used to represent the object”(col. 3, lines 65-67) and ‘within the manifest are the unique identifier within the cluster for each segment, the size of each segment, which encoding algorithm is used and the specific erasure coding (5:7, etc.) for the object”(col. 4, lines 5-10)), wherein splitting the data object includes searching the data object for a separator used to separate processable units of data objects of the identified type (i.e., “A portion of data can be inserted at any point inside the object by inserting a reference to one or more segment sets containing that data into the manifest. If the desired insertion point is within an existing segment set, then that manifest set can be “split” by incorporating two references to it, with the first specifying the range of data before the insertion point, and the second specifying the range of data after the insertion point.”(abstract)). (same motivation above).
With respect to claim 10, Cook et al. discloses further comprising performing a distributed processing task by the storage cluster, the distributed processing task independently executing by multiple respective computing nodes of the storage cluster on respective segments or sets of segments stored therein (i.e., “A cluster may be implemented as a redundant array of independent nodes (a RAIN) meaning that each node runs its own operating system and makes independent decisions about storage within the cluster.”(col. 4, lines 56-60)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 11, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising storing object metadata that associates segments of the data object with locations in the storage cluster where the respective segments are stored (i.e., “The header for each segment will also include system metadata such as the volume identifier where the segment is located, and the likely volume identifier for the next segment of the erasure set (the volume hint). For example, segment k4 includes the volume identifier where the segment k5 is located, segment p2 includes the volume identifier were the segment k1 is located etc.”(col. 7, lines 25-33)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 12, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein storing the object metadata includes storing an association between byte ranges of the data object and segments of the data object (i.e. ,” the segment width 346 (in bytes), and the total segment size 348 (in bytes). Information such as the encoding and segment width may also be present within each erasure set as well as in metadata section 310 in order to provide flexibility, or such data may only be present in one area” (col. 8, lines 1-5)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 13, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 12, wherein performing the distributed processing task includes identifying, based on accessing the object metadata, a subset of the segments that contain data required by the processing task, and directing the processing task to computing nodes that store the subset of segments but not to computing nodes that do not store segments that are part of the subset of segments (i.e., “a manifest can indicate one or more portions of the logical object for which no data has been provided, and for which a “fill” pattern is specified. Thus, if that section of the logical object is accessed, the data will appear to consist entirely of multiple instances of that fill pattern”(col. 2, lines 34-38)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 14, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving, by a gateway, output of the processing task from a plurality of the computing nodes, and combining the output to produce output data ((i.e., “a manifest can indicate one or more portions of the logical object for which no data has been provided, and for which a “fill” pattern is specified. Thus, if that section of the logical object is accessed, the data will appear to consist entirely of multiple instances of that fill pattern”(col. 2, lines 34-38)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 15, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the output received from the plurality of computing nodes is received in an order, and wherein combining the output includes providing the output in the order received (i.e., “Each erasure segment also contains an additional header 280 containing metadata concerning the other segments in the erasure set, such as the unique identifier of its manifest, and the unique identifiers of all of the data and parity segments, in order” (col. 7, lines 20-25)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 16, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the output received by the gateway from the plurality of computing nodes arrives in multiple RDMA (remote direct memory access) transmissions (i.e., “method embodiments of the present invention may execute solely upon CPU 922 or may execute over a network such as the Internet in conjunction with a remote CPU that shares a portion of the processing.”(col. 24, line 30-33)) (same motivation above) .
With respect to claim 21, Mowry, Jr. et al discloses wherein, when splitting the data object into multiple portions, the method further comprises identifying a feature in a portion of the data object that enables faster processing and updating metadata associated with the portion to indicate that the portion includes the identified feature (i.e., “The identifier for this manifest object is returned to client applications for future retrieval of the object. This provides the efficient footprint of erasure coding, while preserving the simple identification, high availability, and fast startup of ordinary replication.”(col. 4, lines 17-22)) (same motivation above) (60)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140244599 A1) and in view of Deremigio et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0089562 A1)
With respect to claim 4, Zhang et al. disclose all limitation recited in claim 2 except for wherein the data object is a CSV (comma-separated values) file having a header that identifies column names, and wherein adding or modifying the metadata includes identifying the header of the CSV file and adding the header to each of the set of portions. However, Derenigio discloses wherein the data object is a CSV (comma-separated values) file having a header that identifies column names (i.e., “ the data 302, 320 format can be a key based record, spreadsheets key based forms, database structure records, Comma Separated Value (CSV) and Tab Separated Value (TSV) having a zero row header file containing the description header for that data field. The invention also supports CSV or TSV files having no zero row header record in the record but only the data fields themselves” (0087)), and wherein adding or modifying the metadata includes identifying the header of the CSV file and adding the header to each of the set of portions (i.e., “If the user wants the option to modify a column heading of an existing table 612 they are required to move data to a spreadsheet file 608, then convert to CSV 610 and the converted CSV file is loaded into a new database table 603”(0186)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use CSV file in order to have different file for the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Deremigio et al (0087). Further, both references teach the same field such as partition, therefore, the combination will be successful.
Claims 6-7, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140244599 A1) and further in view of Haribarasubrahmanian et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0125751 A1)
With respect to claim 6, Zhang et al. disclose all limitations recited in claim 2 except for wherein the data object is a Parquet file that includes multiple row groups and a footer, wherein splitting the data object includes providing a respective set of row groups in each of the set of portions, and wherein adding or modifying the metadata includes adding the footer or a modified version thereof to each of the set of portions. However, Hariharasubrahmanian et al. discloses wherein the data object is a Parquet file that includes multiple row groups and a footer (i.e., “ Instead the new capabilities added in Column store are complementary to Parquet, and work without restriction, in tandem with the original capabilities of Parquet. In an embodiment, new technologies such as Anisotropic Compression (Nymbl) may be combined with Parquet (for files) or other Big Data file format such as optimized row columnar (ORC) or a round-robin database (RRD) format such as RRDtool or Whisper (for time series) for Orbitz's Graphite too”(0023)), wherein splitting the data object includes providing a respective set of row groups in each of the set of portions, and wherein adding or modifying the metadata includes adding the footer or a modified version thereof to each of the set of portions (i.e., ‘file 130 may be a Parquet file that has different internal partitions for different columns and/or metadata. Included in the steps of FIG. 3, as discussed later herein, are particular operations for applying step 206 to a Parquet file” (0059) and “Parquet requires that the primary metadata (i.e. for independent columns) be placed in a standard footer at the end of file 130.”(0072)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Parquets file in order to have different file for the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Hariharasubrahmanian et al (0072). Further, both references teach the same field such as partition, therefore, the combination will be successful.
With respect to claim 7, Hariharasubrahmanian et al. discloses the method of claim 6, wherein adding or modifying the metadata further includes adding a header to each of the set of segments, the header including a code that designates the Parquet file (i.e., “ Parquet has made the choice to write the metadata, which is traditionally written in a file header, instead into a file footer. Details of the Parquet file format are presented in related paper “APACHE PARQUET”.”(0149)), and wherein adding the footer or modified version thereof to each of the set of portions includes (i) adding footer metadata that describes the set of row groups in the respective portion but not row groups in other portions (i.e., “ Rows in Parquet are grouped into Row Groups, such that all the data for each Row Group, for each Column Chunk within that Row Group, roughly fits into an expected Page Size… the Row Group is closed when the Page sizes reaches the specified target threshold which matches the expected block size of the underlying HDFS file system”(0158-59)), (ii) adding a length of the footer metadata (i.e., “The second to last word from the end of the Parquet file, just before the four byte magic-number signature (“PAR”), specifies a length of the file metadata”(0150)), and (iii) adding the code that designates the Parquet file (i.e., “ Streaming may be further facilitated because compression formats herein are designed for single pass encoding. For example. Snappy has no consolidated metadata, such as an encoding dictionary”(0038)).
With respect to claim 24, Hariharasubrahmanian discloses wherein the separators between processable units of the data object include at least one of (i) a NewLine character in a CSV (comma-separated values) file, (ii) an I-frame in a video file, an (iii) a footer in a Parquet file (i.e., “ Parquet has made the choice to write the metadata, which is traditionally written in a file header, instead into a file footer. Details of the Parquet file format are presented in related paper “APACHE PARQUET”.”(0149)) (same motivation above).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140244599 A1) in view of Mowry, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,853,197)
With respect to claim 18, Zhang et al. discloses wherein transforming the portions into segments includes copying a region of data from a first portion adjacent to a boundary between a first portion and a second portion to the second portion. Mowry, Jr. et al.discloses wherein transforming the portions into segments includes copying a region of data from a first portion adjacent to a boundary between a first portion and a second portion to the second portion (i.e., “”It should be appreciated that the term "adjacent" refers to areas that are adjoining. For example, "adjacent copy modules" are copy modules that share a portion of their respective boundaries with each other. The term "ordered array" describes an organized layout of areas of approximately equal size. The phrase "readily duplicated" is defined as being capable of being clearly reproduced without significant blurring of the image *(col. 7, lines 57-65)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Mowry, Jr. et al’’s features in order to effective in protecting the media against copying for the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Mowry, Jr. et al et al (col. 2, lines 27-322). Further, both references teach the same field such as partition, distribution data, therefore, the combination will be successful.
With respect to claim 19, Mowry, Jr. et al discloses wherein transforming the portions into segments includes copying an initial region a first portion to respective initial regions of each of a set of other portions (i.e., “”It should be appreciated that the term "adjacent" refers to areas that are adjoining. For example, "adjacent copy modules" are copy modules that share a portion of their respective boundaries with each other. The term "ordered array" describes an organized layout of areas of approximately equal size. The phrase "readily duplicated" is defined as being capable of being clearly reproduced without significant blurring of the image *(col. 7, lines 57-65)).
With respect to claim 20, Zhang et al. discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising: receiving a processing request that specifies processing of the data object without use of a header; and in response to the processing request, processing the initial region of the first portion but ignoring the initial region of each of the set of other portions (i.e., “When a new data object is added, the deduplication storage system may split the data object into a plurality of data segments and check whether an identical copy of each segment is already stored in a pool of data segments.”(0021)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed further wherein the data object includes data records, and wherein the processing task defines an aggregate query that returns less than 1 kB of output data as results of the aggregate query.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-54 of Patent No. 11,669,505 B2. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 11,669,505 B2 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 11,669,505 claim 1
A method of managing data objects, comprising:
splitting a data object into multiple portions at boundaries within the data object, the boundaries providing separators between processable units of the data object in accordance with a type of the data object, said splitting including scanning, by a gateway computing device, the data object to identify the boundaries;
transforming the portions into segments that provide individually processable units of a same type as the type of the data object; and
distributing the segments among multiple computing nodes of a storage cluster for protected storage therein.
A method of managing data objects, comprising:
splitting a data object into multiple portions at boundaries within the data object, the boundaries providing separators between processable units of the data object in accordance with a type of the data object;
transforming the portions into segments that provide individually processable units of a same type as the type of the data object; and
distributing the segments among multiple computing nodes of a storage cluster for storage therein; and protecting K of the segments distributed among the computing nodes using M elements of repair data generated from the K segments, each of the M elements having multiple ranges that store repair data computed from respective groupings of segments selected from the K segments, the respective groupings including groupings that consist of different numbers of segments.
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 HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571)272-4078. 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.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 December 16, 2025