MULTI-LAYER DATA STORAGE SYSTEM

§103 §112 §251 §DOUBLEPATENT

DETAILED ACTION I. Introduction This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/386,519 (“’519 reissue application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 2 November 2023. 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 reissue of U.S. Patent 11,165,865 (“’865 patent”) titled “MULTI-LAYER DATA STORAGE SYSTEM”, which issued to Michael Roy Stute on 2 November 2021 with claims 1-20 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘865 patent was filed on 6 June 2019 and assigned U.S. patent application number 16/433,854 (“’854 application”). The ’865 patent is currently assigned to Masergy Communications, 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 ‘865 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 or current reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings. III. Priority The ‘854 application is a continuation of application 15/148,764 (“the ‘764 application”), filed 6 May 2016. As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘865 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a priority date of 6 May 2016, the filing date of the ‘764 application. Because the effective filing date of the instant application is after to March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply. Instead, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) 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 construction, 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 6 July 2026 and 3 August 2026 have been entered. VI. Applicant’s Response Applicant’s after-final response, filed 6 July 2026, has been entered into the record. The response included an amendment to the claims and remarks. Specifically, claims 1, 11, 16-19, 21-23, and 25 have been amended. Claims 1-32 remain pending in the application. VII. Response to Arguments Applicant’s response included several arguments. These arguments are addressed in turn below. Specification In view of applicant’s amendment to the claims, the pending objection is withdrawn. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 In view of applicant’s amendment to the claims, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are withdrawn. VIII. Claim Objections Claims 4 and 5 are objected to for the following informalities: Regarding claims 4 and 5, these claims both include the limitation of “predicting when a first partition…becomes saturated.” Claim 5 also includes the limitation of “predicting when a second partition…becomes saturated.” Predictions concern events that will potentially happen in the future, not events that happen in the present. Therefore, this limitations should be “predicting when a first partition…will become saturated,” and “predicting when a second partition…will become saturated.” Claim 31 is objected to, because the first “receiving” limitation should conclude with an “or.” IX. 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 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 Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,198,461. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reissue claims 1, 11, and 16 are anticipated by reference claim 28. Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,138,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reissue claims are anticipated by their respective reference claims. X. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows: New broadened claims 1-32 are directed to methods for storing data through the use of partitions. However, Applicant’s disclosure includes written description support only for methods for storing data in a computerized system. The broadened scope of new claims 1-32 would include embodiments of the invention that were not limited to implementation on a computerized system. However, Applicant’s disclosure lacks written description support for such embodiments, and is instead limited to embodiments implemented on a computerized system. Claims 1-32 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 for failing to comply with the original patent requirement, whereby the reissue claims must be directed to the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. As discussed above, the embodiments of the claimed method that were disclosed in the original patent are all implemented on a computerized system. There are no disclosed embodiments that do not include implementation on a computerized system, as is now claimed. For these reasons, the new reissue claims fail to comply with the original patent requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. See MPEP § 1412.02. XI. 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 1-15, 19, 20, and 25 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 1 and 11, this claim includes the limitation “assigning each key to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets.” However, there is no support in applicant’s disclosure for this limitation. Instead, the ‘519 patent discloses that each subset of the set of keys is assigned to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets (see col. 3, lines 1-2 and 26-28, as well as col. 13, lines 58-63). Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 are likewise rejected. Regarding claim 1, this claim includes the limitation that “in response to the determination to increase or decrease the storage space of the at least one partition, dynamically readjusting a number of keys that are assigned to each data subset.” However, there is no support in applicant’s disclosure for this limitation. With respect to the readjustment of the key space, applicant’s specification discloses that in the case where the storage space of the first partition has been increased, and the storage space of the second and third partitions has been decreased, the key space is remapped to increase the number of keys of the first set of keys [stored in the first partition], and to decrease the number of keys in the second and third sets f keys [stored in the second and third partitions respectively) (see col. 14, lines 5-28 and Figs. 5A and 5B). Given this disclosure, there is no support for the claimed readjustment of keys in response to determining to increase or decrease the storage space of at least one partition. Reallocating keys prior to actually increasing and/or decreasing the storage space of the partitions would result in additional keys being allocated to an already saturated partition, and even fewer keys being allocated to an already under-utilized partition. This would only serve to exacerbate the problem to be solved by the invention. Applicant’s disclosure makes it clear that the remapping of the key space takes place in response to the storage space of the partitions actually being increased and/or decreased, not in response to a determination to do so. Dependent claims 2-10 are likewise rejected. Regarding claim 5, this claim includes the limitation that decisions on reallocating storage space are based on predictions of which partition would become saturated sooner. There does not appear to be support for this limitation in application’s disclosure. Regarding claim 14, this claim includes the limitation that counters of a number of data values stored in the partitions are increased or decreased in response to determining to increase storage space of at least one partition. However, merely determining to increase storage space does not increase or decrease the number of data values stored in a given partition. Applicant’s specification discloses that the counters will be changed in response to a change in the number of data values stored in a given partition (see col. 9, lines 51-55). There is no disclosure of a change in the counters in response to the determination to increase the storage space of a partition. Regarding claim 15, this claim includes the feature that a density map indicative of a frequency of data values stored on the plurality of partitions is generated. However, there is no support for such a feature. The only analogous disclosure seems to be at col. 10, lines 31-34, where the generation of a density map that illustrates a frequency of the data values received by the data storage system is disclosed. There is no disclosure of a density map of a frequency of data values stored, and therefore also no disclosure of a density map of a frequency of data values stored on a plurality of partitions. Regarding claim 19, this claim includes the limitations that in response to a prediction that the storage space of a partition will increase or decrease, increasing or decreasing the number of keys assigned to the respective partition. There is no support in applicant’s disclosure for this feature. Applicant’s specification discloses that the allocation manager may predict when partitions may become oversaturated or under-utilized. See, e.g., col. 7, lines 28-60, col. 12, line 51 through col. 13, line 11. However, in all of these disclosures, the allocation manager responds to these predictions by making adjustments to the storage space of the partition. There is no disclosure of a change in assignment of keys to partitions based on said predictions, at least not until after the storage space has been adjusted. As discussed above, making such adjustments in key assignments prior to actually changing the amount of storage space allocated to the partitions would exacerbate the problem that the invention is trying to solve, by allocating additional keys to an already saturated partition, and allocating even fewer keys to an already under-utilized partition. Dependent claim 20 is likewise rejected. Regarding claim 25, this claim includes the limitation that data types (used as a basis for determining the partition in which the data is stored, parent claim 21), include a common parameter, a transaction time range, a transaction type, a source, or a common portion of the dataset. There is clear support in applicant’s disclosure for storing data based upon the type of data (col. 1, lines 26-29). However, it is unclear where applicant’s disclosure provides support for storing data based on the specific types of data included in claim 25. A statement citing sources of support for storing data based upon each specific data type would be helpful. 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 1-15, 25, 26, and 30 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 1 and 11, these claims include the limitation of “assigning each key to a data subset.” There is no antecedent basis for the term “each key,” since there is only a single key which could possibly serve as its antecedent (“assigning a key…”). Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 are likewise rejected. Regarding claim 3, this claim includes the limitation “predicting to increase or decrease the storage space of the at least one partition.” This renders the claim indefinite. The meaning of the term “predict” is “to declare or indicate in advance1.” Based upon the claim language, one might predict that the storage space of the partition may need to be increased or decreased at some point in the future, based on the frequency at which data values are stored. However, one could not “predict to increase or decrease the storage space.” More properly, one might determine to increase or decrease the storage space of a partition, based on a prediction. Dependent claims 4 and 5 are likewise rejected. Regarding claim 5, this claim recites in the preamble “wherein predicting increase or decrease.” There is no antecedent basis for this term. Applicant is presumably referring to claim 3’s limitation of “predicting to increase or decrease.” Regarding claim 11, this claim includes the limitations of increasing storage space of a partition, decreasing storage space of a partition, and readjusting keys. However, while the “increasing” limitation is explicitly performed in response to determining to increase storage space, it is unclear whether the “decreasing” and “readjusting” limitations are also performed in response to this determination. If this is the case, a change of indenting of the limitations, or a use of letter indexes (e.g., (a), (b), etc.) would be helpful in conveying that fact. Dependent claims 12-15 are likewise rejected. Regarding claim 14, this claim includes the limitation that counters of a number of data values stored in the partitions are increased or decreased in response to determining to increase storage space of at least one partition. However, merely determining to increase storage space does not increase or decrease the number of data values stored in a given partition. It is not until the amount of storage space has been adjusted, and the key space has been remapped, that the number of data values in a given partition will have changed. Regarding claim 15, this claim includes the feature that a density map indicative of a frequency of data values stored on the plurality of partitions is generated. However, the precise meaning of this limitation is unclear. Applicant’s disclosure distinguishes between a density map indicative of the number of data values stored (col. 10, lines 21-31) and the frequency (i.e., rate) of data values received (col. 10, lines 31-34). Based upon the support in applicant’s disclosure, the Office would interpret the latter disclosure as the generation of a density map of the rate at which specific data values are received by the data storage system (i.e., differentiating between the rate at which the data value “1” is received as opposed to the rate at which the data value “2” is received, etc.) However, given the limitation of claim 15, that the density map is indicative of a frequency of data values stored on the plurality of partitions, the correct interpretation of this limitation is unclear. Regarding claim 25, this claim includes the limitation that each data type is associated with a common portion of the dataset. However, this limitation renders the claim indefinite. While applicant’s specification discloses storing data values based upon, amongst other things, a common parameter (col. 19, lines 36-56), there is no disclosure regarding storing data values based upon “a common portion of the dataset.” The meaning of this term, and how it is different than the disclosed “common parameter,” is unclear. Regarding claim 26, this claim recites that the threshold indicates at least one of the percentage of the first partition used, or the number of data values stored. However, parent claim 21 states that the threshold indicates the number of data values stored. This renders claim 26 indefinite, since the threshold cannot indicate both the number of data values stored and the percentage of the first partition used. Regarding claim 30, this claim includes the limitation “the receiving the plurality of data values associated with a dataset.” There is no antecedent basis for this term. Applicant may have been referring to the step of “receiving a plurality of data values of a dataset” of claim 21. XII. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claims 1-3, 6-18, 21-27, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,356,150 to Ian Matthew Gary Meyers (“Meyers”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,853,772 to Robert C. Chang et al. (“Chang”). Claim 1 Regarding claim 1, Meyers teaches a method comprising: a) receiving a plurality of data values (see disclosure of a sequence of data records, or stream, col. 3, lines 40-44 and 54-59) associated with a plurality of data subsets (see disclosure that the partition to which a given data record belongs may be selected on the basis of the values of one or more attributes [where different values of the one or more attributes define the claimed data subsets] of the data record, col. 3, lines 59-62); b) assigning a key to each data value of the plurality of data values based on a data subset, of the plurality of data subsets, associated with that value (see disclosure that a partitioning attribute can be provided as input to a function that produces a positive integer that can be used as a key, col. 3, lines 62-67); c) assigning each key to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets (see disclosure that the key can be used to identify a partition for that record, col. 3, lines 66-67); and e) dynamically readjusting a number of keys that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored in a plurality of partitions (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Meyers does not explicitly teach a method comprising determining, based on data values stored on a plurality of partitions, to increase storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions to store additional data values or decrease storage space of the at least one partition to store fewer data values. Chang, however, teaches a method comprising determining, based on data values stored on a plurality of partitions, to increase storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions to store additional data values or decrease storage space of the at least one partition to store fewer data values (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to reallocate space among partitions when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold, because when a partition is full, no more data can be written there (see col. 9, lines 30-32) and reallocating would allow the system to continue writing data records to the partition in accordance with their respective corresponding key value. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). It would have likewise been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to perform the readjustment of the key space in response to the determination to increase or decrease the storage space of at least one partition, since Meyers discloses that the initial distribution of keys to the partitions is in uniformly sized ranges, under the assumption that the storage resources associated with the partitions are at least roughly equivalent (see col. 9, lines 12-22). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that upon determining that that assumption was no longer true (as would be the case after the storage space was redistributed amongst the partitions such that some partitions have more storage space than others), the keys of the key space should be rebalanced to ensure that the number of keys assigned to the respective partitions is appropriate (e.g., proportional) for each partition’s storage capacity. Claim 11 Regarding claim 11, Meyers teaches a method comprising: a) receiving a plurality of data values (see disclosure of a sequence of data records, or stream, col. 3, lines 40-44 and 54-59) associated with a plurality of data subsets (see disclosure that the partition to which a given data record belongs may be selected on the basis of the values of one or more attributes [where different values of the one or more attributes define the claimed data subsets] of the data record, col. 3, lines 59-62); b) assigning a key to each data value of the plurality of data values based on a data subset, of the plurality of data subsets, associated with that value (see disclosure that a partitioning attribute can be provided as input to a function that produces a positive integer that can be used as a key, col. 3, lines 62-67); c) assigning each key to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets (see disclosure that the key can be used to identify a partition for that record, col. 3, lines 66-67); d) storing each data value on a partition of a plurality of partitions based on each key assigned to the data value (see disclosure that the key can be used to identify a partition for that record, col. 3, lines 66-67; see also disclosure that the system can ingest data records received from various data producers and store the data records, col. 8, lines 16-19); and g) readjusting a number of keys that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored in a plurality of partitions (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Meyers does not explicitly teach a method comprising determining to increase storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions to store additional data values, increasing the storage space of a first partition of the at least one partition, and decreasing storage space of a second partition of the at least one partition, wherein at least a portion of the storage space of the second partition that is decreased is allocated to the first partition. Chang, however, teaches a method comprising determining to increase storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions to store additional data values, increasing the storage space of a first partition of the at least one partition, and decreasing storage space of a second partition of the at least one partition, wherein at least a portion of the storage space of the second partition that is decreased is allocated to the first partition (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to reallocate space among partitions when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold, because when a partition is full, no more data can be written there (see col. 9, lines 30-32) and reallocating would allow the system to continue writing data records to the partition in accordance with their respective corresponding key value. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). It would have likewise been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to perform the readjustment of the key space in response to the determination to increase the storage space of at least one partition, since Meyers discloses that the initial distribution of keys to the partitions is in uniformly sized ranges, under the assumption that the storage resources associated with the partitions are at least roughly equivalent (see col. 9, lines 12-22). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that upon determining that that assumption was no longer true (as would be the case after the storage space was redistributed amongst the partitions such that some partitions have more storage space than others), the keys of the key space should be rebalanced to ensure that the number of keys assigned to the respective partitions is appropriate (e.g., proportional) for each partition’s storage capacity. Claim 16 Regarding claim 16, Meyers teaches a method comprising: a) assigning a plurality of keys to a plurality of data values associated with a plurality of data subsets, associated with that value (see disclosure that a partitioning attribute can be provided as input to a function that produces a positive integer that can be used as a key, col. 3, lines 62-67), wherein each key of the plurality of keys is assigned to a partition of a plurality of partitions, and wherein each partition is assigned to store data values of data belonging to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets (see disclosure that the key can be used to identify a partition for that record, col. 3, lines 66-67; see also disclosure that the partition to which a given data record belongs may be selected on the basis of the values of one or more attributes [where different values of the one or more attributes define the claimed data subsets] of the data record, col. 3, lines 59-62); and c) readjusting a number of keys that are assigned to data values stored on the plurality of partitions based on a number of data values that are stored on the plurality of partitions (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Meyers does not explicitly teach a method comprising determining if storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions has been increased to store additional data values or decreased to store fewer data values. Chang, however, teaches a method comprising determining if storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions has been increased to store additional data values or decreased to store fewer data values (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to reallocate space among partitions when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold, because when a partition is full, no more data can be written there (see col. 9, lines 30-32) and reallocating would allow the system to continue writing data records to the partition in accordance with their respective corresponding key value. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). It would have likewise been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to perform the readjustment of the key space in response to the determination that the storage space of the at least one partition has been increased or decreased, since Meyers discloses that the initial distribution of keys to the partitions is in uniformly sized ranges, under the assumption that the storage resources associated with the partitions are at least roughly equivalent (see col. 9, lines 12-22). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that upon determining that that assumption was no longer true (as would be the case after the storage space was redistributed amongst the partitions such that some partitions have more storage space than others), the keys of the key space should be rebalanced to ensure that the number of keys assigned to the respective partitions is appropriate (e.g., proportional) for each partition’s storage capacity. Claim 21 Regarding claim 21, Meyers teaches a method comprising: a) receiving a plurality of data values of a dataset (see disclosure of a sequence of data records, or stream, col. 3, lines 40-44 and 54-59); b) storing (see disclosure that the system can ingest data records received from various data producers and store the data records, col. 8, lines 16-19), based on a data type of each data value of the plurality of data values, each data value, of the plurality of data values, in a storage partition, of a plurality of storage partitions, that is associated with that data type (see disclosure that the partition to which a given data record belongs may be selected on the basis of the values of one or more attributes [e.g., a data type of a data value] of the data record, col. 3, lines 59-62); and d) causing a dynamic adjustment of a number of keys that are assigned to the data values stored on the plurality of partitions (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Meyers does not explicitly teach a method comprising causing, based on a number of data values stored on a first storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions exceeding a threshold, an allocation of unused storage space from at least one other storage partition, of the plurality of storage partitions, to the first storage partition to increase a storage capacity of the first storage partition for storing additional data values. Chang, however, teaches a method comprising causing, based on a number of data values stored on a first storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions exceeding a threshold, an allocation of unused storage space from at least one other storage partition, of the plurality of storage partitions, to the first storage partition to increase a storage capacity of the first storage partition for storing additional data values (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to reallocate space among partitions when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold, because when a partition is full, no more data can be written there (see col. 9, lines 30-32) and reallocating would allow the system to continue writing data records to the partition in accordance with their respective corresponding key value. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). It would have likewise been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to perform the adjustment of the key space in response to the allocation of unused storage space to the first partition, since Meyers discloses that the initial distribution of keys to the partitions is in uniformly sized ranges, under the assumption that the storage resources associated with the partitions are at least roughly equivalent (see col. 9, lines 12-22). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that upon determining that that assumption was no longer true (as would be the case after the storage space was redistributed amongst the partitions such that some partitions have more storage space than others), the keys of the key space should be rebalanced to ensure that the number of keys assigned to the respective partitions is appropriate (e.g., proportional) for each partition’s storage capacity. Claims 2, 13, and 24 Regarding claims 2, 13, and 24, Meyers additionally discloses a method wherein the storage space of the partitions is adjusted in response to a determination that the frequency at which data values are stored on a given partition exceeds a threshold (see disclosure that in one example of repartitioning the key space, the process is initiated as a result of increased workload, such as an increase in the rate at which data records are being submitted to the system, col. 19, lines 5-9). Claim 3 Regarding claim 3, Meyers additionally discloses a method comprising predicting to increase or decrease the storage space of the at least one partition based on the frequency at which data values are stored on the at least one partition within an operational duration (see disclosure that in one example of repartitioning the key space, the process is initiated as a result of increased workload, such as an increase in the rate at which data records are being submitted to the system, col. 19, lines 5-9; the Office notes that “predicting” to increase or decrease the storage space is not considered patentably distinct from “determining” to increase or decrease the storage space; see rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above). Claim 6 Regarding claim 6, Chang additionally discloses a method comprising determining a storage capacity of the at least one partition, wherein determining to increase or decrease the storage space of the at least one partition is based on the storage capacity of the at least one partition (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to determine to increase or decrease the storage space of a partition based on the storage capacity of the partition, since if the storage capacity of the partition is too small for the number of data values assigned to it, it will be unable to accommodate additional data that otherwise would be stored on the partition, and if the storage capacity of the partition is too large for the number of data values assigned to it, storage space will be under-utilized. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 7 Regarding claim 7, Chang additionally discloses a method comprising determining a number of data values stored on each of the plurality of partitions, increasing storage space of a first partition of the plurality of partitions if the number of data values stored on the first partition is greater than the number of data values stored on at least one other partition of the plurality of partitions, and decreasing the storage space of the first partition of the plurality of partitions if the number of data values stored on the first partition is less than the number of data values stored on at least one other partition of the plurality of partitions (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to increase the storage space of a partition when the number of data values of a partition exceeds that of other partitions, and to decrease the storage space allocated to a partition when because when the number of data values of a partition is less than that of other partitions, since if the storage capacity of the partition is too small for the number of data values assigned to it, it will be unable to accommodate additional data that otherwise would be stored on the partition, and if the storage capacity of the partition is too large for the number of data values assigned to it, storage space will be under-utilized. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 8 Regarding claim 8, Meyers additionally discloses a method comprising receiving a request to increase the storage space of the first partition (see disclosure that an ARA may determine a repartitioning plan for a particular stream in response to a client request, col. 10, lines 24-27). Chang additionally discloses a method comprising identifying a second partition of the plurality of partitions that is under-utilized, decreasing storage space of the second partition by a first value, and increasing the storage space of the first partition by the first value (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to reallocate space among partitions when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold, because when a partition is full, no more data can be written there (see col. 9, lines 30-32) and reallocating would allow the system to continue writing data records to the partition in accordance with their respective corresponding key value. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 9 Regarding claim 9, Chang additionally discloses a method comprising identifying a third partition of the plurality of partitions that is under-utilized, decreasing storage space of the third partition by a second value, and increasing the storage space of the first partition by the second value (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left, it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to reallocate space among partitions when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold, because when a partition is full, no more data can be written there (see col. 9, lines 30-32) and reallocating would allow the system to continue writing data records to the partition in accordance with their respective corresponding key value. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 10 Regarding claim 10, Meyers additionally discloses a method comprising combining the second partition and the third partition into a new partition (see disclosure that under-utilized partitions can be combined, col. 9, lines 34-46). Claim 12 Regarding claim 12, Chang additionally discloses a method comprising accessing one or more indicators of storage of data values of the dataset, wherein determining to increase the storage space of the at least one partition is based on the one or more indicators of storage of data values (see disclosure that if one partition gets full and the other partition has more space left [available capacity or number of values stored on a partition being analogous to the claimed “indicators”], it is useful to re-allocate the amount of space assigned to each partition, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; see also disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold value and the other partition has empty space, col. 9, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to increase the storage space of a partition when an indicator, such as the number of data values of a partition reaching a capacity or a threshold, since if the storage capacity of the partition is too small for the number of data values assigned to it, it will be unable to accommodate additional data that otherwise would be stored on the partition. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 14 Regarding claim 14, Chang additionally discloses a method comprising in response to the determination to increase the storage space of the at least one partition, the method further comprising increasing a value of a first counter of a plurality of counters, the first counter being associated with a number of data values that are stored on the first partition, and decreasing a value of a second counter of the plurality of counters, the second counter being associated with a number of data values that are stored on a second partition (see disclosure that the memory controller reallocates partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a certain threshold, col. 9, lines 16-19; a determination regarding when a partition becomes full or reaches a threshold would inherently require the maintenance of a counter that indicates how many values are stored within a partition, and would be increased when values are added, and decreased when values are deleted; the Office notes that the claim is being interpreted consistent with applicant’s supporting disclosure, that the counters are changed in response to data values being added to or deleted from a partition, see col. 9, lines 51-55). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to maintain counters reflecting the number of data values in respective partitions, since this would allow the system to monitor the amount of data stored and take corrective measures when necessary, such as if a partition reaches capacity or a certain threshold. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 15 Regarding claim 15, Meyers additionally discloses a method further comprising generating a density map indicative of a frequency of data values stored on the plurality of partitions (see disclosure of a partition map, showing partitions having an “open” or “closed” state, indicative of the density of a given partition [i.e., “open” indicates a lower density than “closed”], col. 14, lines 28-47). Claim 17 Regarding claim 17, Meyers additionally discloses a method further comprising storing the plurality of keys on the plurality of partitions, and in response to receiving a first data value of the plurality of data values that is associated with a first key of the plurality if keys, determining a partition of the plurality of partitions to store the first data value based on a partition of the plurality of partitions that stores the first key (see disclosure that ranges of keys are allocated to specific partitions, col. 8, line 55 through col. 9, line 33), and that a received data value is distributed to a partition based upon a key that is generated from the values of one or more attributes of the received data record, col. 3, lines 54-67). Claim 18 Regarding claim 18, Meyers additionally discloses a method further comprising increasing a number of keys assigned to data values in a first partition and decreasing a number of keys assigned to data values stored in a second partition (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Meyers does not explicitly disclose a method whereby the increase and decrease of keys assigned to respective partitions occurs in response to a determination that the storage space of a given partition has increased or decreased. It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application, however, to perform the readjustment of the key space in response to the determination that the storage space of at least one partition has been increased or decreased, since Meyers discloses that the initial distribution of keys to the partitions is in uniformly sized ranges, under the assumption that the storage resources associated with the partitions are at least roughly equivalent (see col. 9, lines 12-22). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that upon determining that that assumption was no longer true (as would be the case after the storage space was redistributed amongst the partitions such that some partitions have more storage space than others), the keys of the key space should be rebalanced to ensure that the number of keys assigned to the respective partitions is appropriate (e.g., proportional) for each partition’s storage capacity. Claim 22 Regarding claim 22, Meyers additionally discloses a method wherein a key is associated with each data value of the plurality of data values (see disclosure that a for a received data record, a partitioning attribute can be provided as input to a function that produces a positive integer that can be used as a key, col. 3, lines 62-67), wherein each key corresponds to the storage partition where each data value of the plurality of data values is stored (see disclosure that the key can be used to identify a partition for that record, col. 3, lines 66-67), and wherein a key space maps each key to a storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44). Claim 23 Regarding claim 23, Meyers additionally discloses a method further comprising causing an adjustment to the key space to increase a number of keys corresponding to the first storage partition (see disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Meyers does not explicitly disclose a method whereby the readjustment of the key space to increase the number of keys corresponding to a first partitions occurs in response to an allocation of unused storage space from at least one other partition to the first partition. It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application, however, to perform the readjustment of the key space in response to the determination that the storage space of at least one partition has been increased or decreased, since Meyers discloses that the initial distribution of keys to the partitions is in uniformly sized ranges, under the assumption that the storage resources associated with the partitions are at least roughly equivalent (see col. 9, lines 12-22). It would have been obvious to a POSITA that upon determining that that assumption was no longer true (as would be the case after the storage space was redistributed amongst the partitions such that some partitions have more storage space than others), the keys of the key space should be rebalanced to ensure that the number of keys assigned to the respective partitions is appropriate (e.g., proportional) for each partition’s storage capacity. Claim 25 Regarding claim 25, Meyers additionally discloses a method wherein each data type is associated with a common parameter (see disclosure that a partitioning attribute [i.e., parameter] can be provided as input to a function that produces a positive integer that can be used as a key, col. 3, lines 62-67); a transaction time range; a transaction type; a source; or a common portion of the dataset. Claim 26 Regarding claim 26, Chang does not explicitly disclose a method wherein the threshold indicates at least one of the percentage of the first storage partition that is used, or the number of data values that are stored on the first storage partition, although Chang does disclose that a memory controller will reallocate the partition space when one partition becomes full or reaches a threshold (see col. 9, lines 16-19). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application, however, that the threshold indicates at least one of the percentage of the first storage partition that is used, or the number of data values that are stored on the first storage partition, since Chang’s reallocation of the partition space is intended to prevent the situation where a partition can no longer be written to because of a lack of available space. In order to determine whether sufficient space is maintained, a POSITA would recognize that the threshold would necessarily be related to available memory or disk space, such as percentage of space used, or number of values already stored. Claim 27 Regarding claim 27, Chang discloses a method wherein causing the allocation of the unused storage space from the at least one other storage partition to the first storage partition comprises determining the total number of data values stored on each partition of the plurality of partitions (see disclosure of a determination of whether a partition is full, col. 9, lines 47-51, and a determination of whether empty space is available, col. 9, lines 57-59, determinations that would require determining the number of data values stored in each partition.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to determine the total number of data values stored on each partition, since making such a determination would be a prerequisite to making a determination as to whether such a reallocation of storage space amongst the partitions is necessary in order to maintain sufficient storage space in each partition for normal data storage operation to be maintained. This would provide a method for efficiently managing partitions for optimum usage of memory storage space (see col. 2, lines 34-36). Claim 30 Regarding claim 30, Meyers additionally discloses a method wherein the receiving the plurality of data values associated with a dataset comprises receiving, from one or more computing devices via one or more networks, the plurality of data values associated with the dataset (see disclosure of a stream, or sequence of data records generated by one or more data producers, col. 3, lines 40-42; see also illustration of the claimed one or more computing devices 9060, providing said stream via one or more networks 9050, Fig. 10). Claim 31 Regarding claim 31, Meyers additionally discloses a method wherein the causing the allocation is further based on at least one of receiving an indication of a request to increase the storage space of the first partition or receiving an indication of a request to decrease the storage space of at least one second partition (see disclosure that an ARA may determine a repartitioning plan for a particular stream in response to a client request, col. 10, lines 24-27). Claim 32 Regarding claim 32, Chang does not explicitly disclose a method wherein the indication of a request to decrease storage space of the at least one second storage partition is based on the number of data values stored on the at least one second storage partition being below a second threshold, although Chang does disclose that if a partition is full, the controller determines if empty space is available from another partition prior to any reallocation of space from one partition to another (see col. 9, lines 52-63). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application, however, that the indication of a request to decrease storage space of the at least one second storage partition would be based on the number of data values stored on the at least one second storage partition being below a second threshold, since Chang’s reallocation of the partition space is intended to ensure that partitions do not become full or lack sufficient space for additional data to be written. In order to ensure that sufficient space is maintained, a POSITA would recognize that memory space would not be removed from any given partition unless a threshold amount of storage space would remain available (i.e., there are few enough data values stored in the partition that a decrease in storage space would not adversely affect the operation of the partition). Claims 4, 5, 19, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,356,150 to Ian Matthew Gary Meyers (“Meyers”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,853,772 to Robert C. Chang et al. (“Chang”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-18, 21-27, and 30-32 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,330,158 to Wei Xiao et al. (“Xiao”). Claim 4 Regarding claim 4, Meyers and Chang teach a method substantially as claimed, including increasing storage space of the first partition and decreasing the storage space of the second partition (see Chang, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; col. 9, lines 16-20). Neither Meyers nor Chang teaches a method wherein the increasing storage space occurs if the first partition is predicted to become saturated within a first threshold operational duration, and the decreasing storage space occurs if the first partition is not predicted to become saturated within a second threshold operational duration. Xiao, however, teaches a method wherein reallocation of memory among partitions (e.g., adding partitions to fan-out groups or removing partitions from fan-out groups) are undertaken on the basis of a predictive model that incorporates factors, such as the rate at which new items are added and the distribution of new items, and the output of the model includes forecasted hotspots, forecasted workload, number of fan-out partitions needed to process forecasted workload, etc., col. 10, lines 40-50. It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize a predictive model in making decisions regarding reallocation of storage space amongst partitions and reallocation of keys within a key space, since this would allow the system to be proactive in taking measures to prevent partitions from becoming full and affecting the normal operation of the distribution of data values amongst the partitions of the data storage system. Claim 5 Regarding claim 5, Meyers and Chang teach a method substantially as claimed, including increasing storage space of the first partition and decreasing the storage space of the second partition (see Chang, col. 2, lines 25-28 and 50-53; col. 3, lines 4-15; col. 9, lines 47-59; col. 9, lines 16-20). Neither Meyers nor Chang teaches a method wherein the increasing storage space occurs if the first partition is predicted to become saturated before a second partition, and the decreasing storage space occurs if the second partition is predicted to become saturated before the first partition. Xiao, however, teaches a method wherein reallocation of memory among partitions (e.g., adding partitions to fan-out groups or removing partitions from fan-out groups) are undertaken on the basis of a predictive model that incorporates factors, such as the rate at which new items are added and the distribution of new items, and the output of the model includes forecasted hotspots, forecasted workload, number of fan-out partitions needed to process forecasted workload, etc., col. 10, lines 40-50. It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize a predictive model in making decisions regarding reallocation of storage space amongst partitions and reallocation of keys within a key space, since this would allow the system to be proactive in taking measures to prevent partitions from becoming full and affecting the normal operation of the distribution of data values amongst the partitions of the data storage system. It would have likewise been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to allocate additional storage space to a partition that is predicted to become saturated sooner than another partition, and to decrease the allocated storage space to a given partition when it is predicted that another partition will become saturated sooner than the given partition, since a POSITA would know that the partition that is predicted to become saturated sooner than others requires the most immediate attention in preventing said saturation from occurring. Claim 19 Regarding claim 19, Meyers and Chang teach a method substantially as claimed, including increasing and/or decreasing the number of keys assigned to data values stored on a given partition (see Meyers, disclosure that ranges of the key values may correspond to respective partitions, col. 4, lines 2-3; see also disclosure that the key space can be divided into uniformly-sized ranges under the assumption that storage resources associated with the partitions are roughly equivalent, col. 9, lines 12-22; see also disclosure that the key ranges of the target partitions need not be equal to one another in some embodiments, col. 7, lines 43-44; see also disclosure that in some embodiments, the automated repartitioning agent (ARA) may simply rebalance the key space of a stream, e.g., instead of decreasing or increasing the number of partitions, col. 7, lines 55-58 and col. 19, lines 22-24). Neither Meyers nor Chang teaches a method wherein the increasing and/or decreasing the number of keys assigned to data values stored on a given partition occurs if the storage space of the given partition is predicted to increase within a first threshold operational duration, and/or if the storage space of the given partition is predicted to decrease within a second threshold operational duration. Xiao, however, teaches a method wherein reallocation of memory among partitions (e.g., adding partitions to fan-out groups or removing partitions from fan-out groups) are undertaken on the basis of a predictive model that incorporates factors, such as the rate at which new items are added and the distribution of new items, and the output of the model includes forecasted hotspots, forecasted workload, number of fan-out partitions needed to process forecasted workload, etc., col. 10, lines 40-50. It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize a predictive model in making decisions regarding reallocation of storage space amongst partitions and reallocation of keys within a key space, since this would allow the system to be proactive in taking measures to prevent partitions from becoming full and affecting the normal operation of the distribution of data values amongst the partitions of the data storage system. Claim 20 Regarding claim 20, Xiao additionally teaches a method further comprising predicting the increase and/or decrease of storage space on a given partition based on the determination of a frequency at which data values are stored in the first and second partitions (see disclosure that the predictive model can incorporate factors such as the rate at which new items are added [rendering the determination of frequency at which data values are stored inherent] and the distribution of new items, col. 10, lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to make predictions regarding the future saturation of a given partition (and therefore regarding its increase and/or decrease in storage space) based upon the frequency at which data items are added to the given partition, since the current rate at which new data values are added to a partition can be used to project the total number of data values stored in the partition at a given future time, and thus the time at which the storage space of the partition will become full (e.g., saturated). Claim 28 Regarding claim 28, Xiao additionally teaches a method wherein causing the allocation of the unused storage space from the at least one other storage partition to the first storage partition comprises determining a probability that a data value of the plurality of data values will be stored on the first storage partition and wherein the causing the allocation is further based on the probability (see disclosure that the predictive model can incorporate factors such as the distribution of new items, col. 10, lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to make predictions regarding the future saturation of a given partition (and therefore regarding its increase and/or decrease in storage space) based upon the distribution of data items added to the various partitions, since the proportion of new data values that are added to a given partition can be used to project the total number of data values stored in the partition at a given future time, and thus the time at which the storage space of the partition will become full (e.g., saturated). Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,356,150 to Ian Matthew Gary Meyers (“Meyers”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,853,772 to Robert C. Chang et al. (“Chang”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-18, 21-27, and 30-32 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0127658 to Jie Ding et al. (“Ding”). Claim 29 Regarding claim 29, Meyers and Chang teach a method substantially as claimed. Neither Meyers nor Chang explicitly discloses a method wherein each storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions is associated with a priority indicating a need for an increased allocation of storage space based on the number of data values stored on each storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions. Ding, however, discloses a method wherein each storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions is associated with a priority indicating a need for an increased allocation of storage space based on the number of data values stored on each storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions (see disclosure of a priority partition list indicating a need for increased storage space in a given partition, ¶¶ [0065]-[0068] and Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)). It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the application to associate each storage partition with a priority indicating a need for an increased allocation of storage space based on the number of data values stored on each partition, since this would allow the system to easily identify the partition which is most likely to become saturated sooner than other partitions, and to address the issue by allocating additional storage space to that partition first. XIII. 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 ‘865 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘865 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 ‘865 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: /Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Michael Fuelling /MF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 3992 lsw 5 October 2026 1 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, downloaded from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict.