REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These disclosure 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.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
Priority Date
The Patent Application for the US Patent No. 11,165,865 (SN: 16/433,854) has been filed on June 6th, 2019. The Application claims priority date of the Continuation patent Application No.15/148,764 (now US Patent No. 10,356,174), which has been filed on May 6th, 2016. Accordingly, May 6th, 2016 is considered effective filling date.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Objection to the Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
The MPEP 608.01(o) states: “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. (See MPEP
§ 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a)).
Usually, the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology”.
Correction of the following is required:
In this instance, the original specification does not recite “identifier”. Instead, the disclosure mentions “key”, but it is not clear whether those limitations are equivalent to each other. Moreover, ambiguity as to the meaning of those terms, further renders claim language indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 16, 17, 21-22, 24-26 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meyers (US Patent No. 10,356,150).
With respect to claim 1, Meyers discloses a method comprising: receiving a plurality of data values associated with a plurality of data subsets; assigning an identifier 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; assigning each identifier to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets (column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 25 and column 10, lines 24-33, wherein identifiers/keys are assigned to data records based on values/attributes and mapped to a corresponding partition matching the key); determining whether to readjust storage space of at least one partition of a plurality of partitions of a storage medium based on data values stored on the plurality of partitions (column 19, line 64 to column 20, line 11, based on the number of data values stored in a given partition, the partitions are either identified as “cold” or “hot”, based on whether they were underutilized or overutilized); and in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition, dynamically readjusting a number of identifiers that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored in the plurality of partitions (column 7, lines 10-20, wherein key ranges (i.e. wherein each key corresponds to an identifier) are modified to properly map respective partitions).
With respect to claim 6, Mayers teaches the method, further comprising: determining a storage capacity of the at least one partition, wherein determining whether to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition is based on the storage capacity of the at least one partition (Figure 7 and column 18, line 63- column 19, line 4, wherein resource capacities include storage capacity. In addition, as discussed in column 19, lines 31-42, when partition is “hot” (i.e. overloaded), it corresponds to resource capacity as mentioned above, and one of those capacities is storage capacity).
With respect to claim 7, Meyers teaches repartitioning streams and partitions based their utilization and determining a number of data values stored on each partition of the plurality of partitions (column 17, lines 16-24). Meyers further teaches 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 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 (column 19, line 34 to column 20, line 11, wherein the data among partitions is compared and it is determined whether the threshold is exceeded (i.e. ”hot”), in order words partition with workload above threshold corresponds to a partition with more data values than a partition below a threshold value (i.e. “cold”). Based on the determination a “hot” partition can be resized such that it can be merged with another partition to gain additional space, while “cold” partition can be split (i.e. its size is decreased).
With respect to claim 10, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising combining the second partition and the third partition into a new partition (Figure 8, wherein the second example shows that three partitions (P0, P1 and P2) can be combined merged into one (P4), hence Meyers teaches that second and third partitions can be combined).
With respect to claim 16, Meyers discloses a method comprising: assigning a plurality of identifiers to a plurality of data values associated with a plurality of data sub-sets wherein each identifier of the plurality of identifiers 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 (column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 25 and column 10, lines 24-33, wherein identifiers/keys are assigned to data records based on values/attributes and mapped to a corresponding partition matching the key); determining if storage space of at least one partition of the plurality of partitions has been readjusted (Figure 4A, for instance in map 410B partition S1-P1 has been split into two partitions); and in response to a determination that the storage space of the at least one partition has been readjusted, readjusting a number of identifiers 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 (as depicted in Figure 4A, after partition S1-P1 is split into two partitions they identifiers/keys are also adjusted).
With respect to claim 17, Meyer teaches the method, further comprising: storing the plurality of identifiers 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 identifier of the plurality of identifiers, 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 identifier (column 3, lines 59-67).
With respect to claim 21, Meyers discloses a method comprising: receiving a plurality of data values of a dataset: storing, 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 (Figure 1, wherein different data types (160A, 160B and so on) are being supplied to the management system and being assigned to a corresponding partition (i.e. 140A, 140B) based on its attribute, column 3, line 59 – column 4, line 25); and 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 (column 16, line 62 to column 17, line 24 and column 19, line 64 to column 20, line 11); and causing based on the allocation of unused storage space to the first storage partition, a dynamic adjustment of a number of identifiers that are assigned to the data values stored on the plurality of storage partitions (column 7, lines 10-20, wherein key ranges (i.e. wherein each key corresponds to an identifier) are modified to properly map respective partitions).
With respect to claim 22, Meyers teaches the method, wherein an identifier is associated with each data value of the plurality of data values, wherein each identifier corresponds to the storage partition where each data value of the plurality of data values is stored (column 17, line 45 to column 18, line 2, wherein each data entry has its corresponding key/identifier which is also mapped to a particular partition), and wherein a key space maps each identifier to a storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions (Figure 5, column 15, line 57 to column 16, line 3).
With respect to claim 24, Meyers teaches the method, wherein the causing the allocation is based on at least one of: determining a frequency at which data values are stored on the first storage partition, or determining a number of data values that are stored on the first storage partition (column 19, line 31 to column 20, line 11, wherein partitions are considered either “hot” or “cold” based on their utilization (i.e. how many data records are stored in them)).
With respect to claim 25, Meyers teaches the method, wherein each data type of the plurality of data types is associated with: a common parameter, a transaction time range, a transaction type (column 5, lines 14-21, wherein each data type may be subjected (i.e. associated with) to various operations/transactions types. In addition, column 3, lines 59-67, also discusses using attribute), a source, or a common portion of the dataset.
With respect to claim 26, Meyers teaches the method, wherein the threshold indicates at least one of: the percentage of the first storage partition that is used, the number of data values that are stored on the first storage partition (column 17, lines 16-24).
With respect to claim 30, Meyers teaches the 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 (column 8, lines 4-43 and Figure 1).
With respect to claim 31. Meyers teaches the method, wherein the causing the allocation is further based on at least one of: receiving an indication of a request to increase storage space of the first storage partition, receiving an indication of a request to decrease storage space of the at least one second storage partition (column 5, lines 14-37, wherein a user may set goals and Automated Repartitioning Agent (ARA) can issue request/instruction to either merge or split partitions).
With respect to claim 32. Meyers teaches the 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 (column 17, lines 12-32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US Patent No. 10,356,150) in view of Murray et al (US Patent No. 9,235,611).
With respect to claim 2, Meyer teaches adjusting sizes of partitions (i.e. repartitioning) based on the amount of data stored therein and other workload analysis associated with those partitions, as disclosed in claim 1, however he does not explicitly recite determining a frequency at which data values are stored on the at least one partition (column 10, lines 24-55).
On the other hand, Murray teaches a method for storage balancing comprising the step of determining a frequency at which data values are stored on the at least one partition (i.e. node) (column 9, line 61 to column 10, line 15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Murray’s teaching about analyzing frequency with which the data is stored/accessed, with Meyer’s teaching about determining whether to readjust the storage space, in order to efficiently and dynamically adjust partitions in order to support fluid and effective data processing.
With respect to claim 3, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising: predicting whether to readjust 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 (column 10, lines 24-55, wherein based on the “workload” (i.e. frequency with which data is being accessed/stored) a plan to repartition (i.e. wherein plan is based on prediction) is created to account for the incoming demand).
In addition, Murray teaches predicting future usage of space based on the storage demand (column 10, lines 9-15).
To the extent that one could argue that Meyer does not explicitly teach repartitioning based on prediction of the storage demands gathered from the frequency with which data was stored/accessed, Murray explicitly recites those features, hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the frequency in formulating a prediction/plan, to better account for the future demand, therefore yielding robust and functional solution.
Claims 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 18, 23, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US Patent No. 10,356,150) in view of Andrews et al (US Publication No. 2012/0054734), hereinafter referred to as Andrews.
With respect to claim 8, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising: receiving a request to increase the storage space of the first partition; identifying a second partition of the plurality of partitions that is under-utilized (column 19, line 34 to column 20, line 11 explains how partitions are processed in order to determine their workload and to carry out balancing steps and Figure 9A. Partitions can be identified as “hot” or “cold” depending on their usage).
Meyers however, does not explicitly teach decreasing storage space of the second partition by a first value; and increasing the storage space of the first partition by the first value.
On the other hand, Andrews teaches decreasing storage space of the second partition by a first value; and increasing the storage space of the first partition by the first value ([0016] and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve Meyers’s partition balancing process by incorporating Andrews’s teaching about finding unused space in other partitions and appending it to the partition which is need of more storage, for the purpose of improving flexibility and efficiency.
With respect to claim 9, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising: receiving a request to increase the storage space of the first partition; identifying a third partition of the plurality of partitions that is under-utilized (column 19, line 34 to column 20, line 11 explains how partitions are processed in order to determine their workload and to carry out balancing steps and Figure 9A. Partitions can be identified as “hot” or “cold” depending on their usage).
On the other hand, Andrews teaches decreasing storage space of the second/third partition by a first value; and increasing the storage space of the first partition by the first value ([0016] and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve Meyers’s partition balancing process by incorporating Andrews’s teaching about finding unused space in other partitions and appending it to the partition which is need of more storage, for the purpose of improving flexibility and efficiency.
Furthermore, mere repetition of a step lies in a prevue of abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. In other words, searching for under-utilized space in the third partition would be no different than searching for storage in a second partition, hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the search for under-utilized space to the third partition if more space would be needed.
With respect to claim 11, Meyers discloses a method comprising: receiving a plurality of data values associated with a plurality of data subsets; assigning an identifier 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; assigning each identifier to a data subset of the plurality of data subsets (column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 25 and column 10, lines 24-33, wherein identifiers/keys are assigned to data records based on values/attributes and mapped to a corresponding partition matching the key); storing each data value on a partition of a plurality of partitions of a storage medium based on each identifier assigned to the data value (column 9, lines 12-33, wherein received streams/data are stored in respective partitions based on the hash value); after storing the data value on the partition, determining whether to readjust at least one partition of a plurality of partitions of the storage medium (column 19, line 64 to column 20, line 11, based on the number of data values stored in a given partition, the partitions are either identified as “cold” or “hot”, based on whether they were underutilized or overutilized. As explained in column 9, lines 34-42, if the storage space is inadequate the resizing of the partitions take place); and readjusting a number of identifiers that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored on the plurality of partitions (column 7, lines 10-20, wherein key ranges (i.e. wherein each key corresponds to an identifier) are modified to properly map respective partitions).
While Meyers teaches adjusting sizes of respective partitions based on the percentage of their usage, he does not explicitly state that in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition, increasing storage space of a first partition of the at least one partition; 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.
On the other hand, Andrews teaches dynamic adjustment of partitions wherein and in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition, increasing storage space of a first partition of the at least one partition; 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 ([0016] and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Meyer’s and Andrew’s teachings and add or remove portions of partitions, in addition to merging or splitting them, as taught by Andrew, in order to improve flexibility, functionality and robustness of the system.
With respect to claim 12, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising: accessing one or more indicators of storage of data values of the dataset, wherein determining whether to readjust the at least one partition is based on the one or more indicators of storage of data values (Abstract, wherein keys correspond to identifiers, and column 15, lines 23-29, wherein keys are used to determine how and if to readjust a partition).
With respect to claim 13, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising: determining a frequency at which data values are stored on the at least one partition, wherein determining whether to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition is based on the frequency at which data values are stored on the at least one partition (column 19, lines 5-9, wherein repartitioning decisions whether to merge or split are based on rate/frequency at which those partitions are utilized).
With respect to claim 15, Meyers teaches the method, further comprising generating a density map indicative of a frequency of data values stored on the plurality of partitions (Figure 4A, wherein key range and indicator “closed” or “open” are indicators of the density. In other words, when the partition is closed this indicates high data value density).
With respect to claim 18, Meyers further teaches the method, further comprising: determining if storage space of a first partition of the at least one partition has increased; in response to a determination that the storage space of the first partition has increased, increasing a number of identifiers assigned to data values stored on a first partition (Figure 8, partitions are merged, if partition “P0” is merged as shown in the figure 8, after resizing there is new corresponding partition “P4”. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 4a or 4b, every time the repartitioning takes place, the key ranges are updated as well); determining storage space of a second partition of the at least one partition has decreased; and in response to a determination that the storage space of the second partition has decreased, decreasing a number of identifiers assigned to data values stored on the second partition (Figure 8, partitions are split, if partition “P1” is split as shown in the figure 8, after resizing there are new corresponding partitions “P0”, “P4” or “P5”. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 4a or 4b, every time the repartitioning takes place, the key ranges are updated as well).
To the extend that one could argue that creating a new partition numbering is not the same as increasing or decreasing size of an existing partition, Andrews teaches dynamic resizing of partitions wherein a size of a given partition can be increased or decreased ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Meyers’s and Andrew’s teachings and allow rebalancing partition’s size without necessity of creating a new partition, in order to simplify addressing of data objects which were already present in that partition.
With respect to claim 23, Meyer teaches the method, further comprising steps for repartitioning when respective partitions are over their capacity or underused (“hot” or “cold”, see column 19, line 31 to column 20, line 12). He, however, does not explicitly teach
causing, based on the allocation of the unused storage space from the at least one other storage partition to the first storage partition, an adjustment to the key space to increase a number of identifiers corresponding to the first storage partition.
On the other hand, Andrews teaches causing, based on the allocation of the unused storage space from the at least one other storage partition to the first storage partition, ([0016] and [0037]), an adjustment to the key space to increase a number of identifiers corresponding to the first storage partition ([0025], wherein after resizing partitions, the key mapping is adjusted to ensure data can be properly accessed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Meyer’s and Andrew’s teachings and add or remove portions of partitions, in addition to merging or splitting them, as taught by Andrew, in order to improve flexibility, functionality and robustness of the system.
With respect to claim 27, Meyers teaches determining the total number of data values stored on each storage partition of the plurality of storage partitions (Meyers teaches evaluating the total usage of a partition, which includes a total number of data records stored in that partition. This is how it can be determined if a partition is “hot” or “cold” (column 20, lines 1-11, wherein in order determine if threshold is reached the amount of stored data has to be determined).
Meyer’s however does not explicitly teach allocation of the unused storage space from at least one other storage partition to the first storage partition.
On the other hand, Andrews teaches the method, wherein causing the allocation of the unused storage space from the at least one other storage partition to the first storage partition ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Meyer’s and Andrew’s teachings and add or remove portions of partitions, in addition to merging or splitting them, as taught by Andrew, in order to improve flexibility, functionality and robustness of the system.
With respect to claim 29, Meyers teaches rebalancing partitions based on the number of data values stored in a given partition (column 7, line 55 to column 8, line 2, wherein “hot” or “cold” partitions correspond to number of data values stored in respective partitions), however he does not explicitly teach the method of, 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.
On the other hand, Andrews teaches a method for dynamic resizing of partitions, wherein if a software must be installed on a given partition, it is treated as a priority and the partition is robustly resized to accommodate the future storing operation, thus this decision is made based on the current data values stored and storage capacity available ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve teaching of Meyers by employing Andrews’s teaching about resizing partitions based on priority to ensure that applications and processes run smoothly.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US Patent No. 10,356,150) in view of Andrews and further in view of Kettner (US Publication No. 2013/0205067).
With respect to claim 28, Meyers teaches process of repartitioning to efficiently store data values and Andrews teaches the process of balancing partitions so that unused portions of one partition can be used by a partition which needs additional storage space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Meyer’s and Andrew’s teachings and add or remove portions of partitions, in addition to merging or splitting them, as taught by Andrew, in order to improve flexibility, functionality and robustness of the system.
Furthermore, Meyers and Andrews do not explicitly recite determining a probability that a data value of the plurality of data values will be stored on the first storage partition, wherein the causing the allocation if further based on the probability.
On the other hand, Kettner teaches storage device aware of I/O transactions and stored data wherein probability is used to efficiently allocate the resources ([0024], [0035] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further improve Meyer’s teaching and employ usage of probabilities as taught by Kettner, in order to accurately assess storage patterns and in turn creating more reliable system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US Patent No. 10,356,150) in view of Andrews et al (US Publication No. 2012/0054734), hereinafter referred to as Andrews and further in view of Schuette et al (US Patent No. 2013/0205076), hereinafter referred to as Schuette.
With respect to claim 14, Meyers teaches the method, wherein in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition requires managing number of objects stored and balancing partitions accordingly (column 20, lines 30-40).
Meyers does not explicitly recite 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 the second partition.
Schuette teaches 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 the second partition ([0017], wherein the change in count of objects in a particular zone (i.e. partition) is either increased or decreased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Meyers’s repartitioning system and employ Schuette’s counter for the purpose of accurately determining current storage utilization, hence improving system’s efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 19 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, the prior art of records does not explicitly recite the method as disclosed in claim 3, wherein predicting whether to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition further comprises: predicting when a first partition of the plurality of partitions becomes saturated; increasing storage space of the first partition if the first partition is predicted to become saturated within a first threshold operational duration; and decreasing the storage space of the first partition if the first partition is not predicted to become saturated within a second threshold operational duration.
With respect to claim 5, the prior art of records does not explicitly recite the method as disclosed in claim 3, wherein predicting when a first partition of the plurality of partitions becomes saturated; predicting when a second partition of the plurality of partitions becomes saturated; increasing storage space of the first partition if the first partition is predicted to become saturated sooner than the second partition; and
decreasing the storage space of the first partition if the second partition is predicted to become saturated sooner than the first partition.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of records does not explicitly recite the method as disclosed in claim 16, further comprising the steps of predicting an increase to storage space of a first partition of the at least one partition within a first operational duration; increasing a number of identifiers assigned to data values stored on a first partition in response to predicting that the storage space of the first partition will increase within the first operational duration; predicting a decrease to storage space of a second partition of the at least one partition within a second operational duration; and decreasing a number of identifiers assigned to data values stored on the second partition in response to predicting that the storage space of the second partition will decrease within the second operational duration.
With respect to claim 20, this claim is also objected by the virtue of its dependency on claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument#1: On page 11, the Applicant contends “Applicant notes that the application as filed supports the use of "identifier" in the claims. For example, in the parent patent (Patent No. 11,165,865), provides "The key manager 203 maps each data value of the dataset to a key on a key space, where each key may be used to identify a corresponding data value, determine whether the corresponding data value is stored on the storage medium 104, and identify the data manager managing the corresponding data value." Issued '865 Patent, Col. 5, lines 62-67 … (emphasis added). Thus, the specification already provides support for an "identifier", in that the
specification allows for something which "may be used to identify".
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner agrees that, “the specification already provides support for an "identifier", in that the specification allows for something which "may be used to identify"”, however the original disclosure refers to it as “key” not “identifier”. In order to maintain congruency between claim language and the specification, the vocabulary used therein should be consistent. In this instance, if the term “key” has been used to refer to something which “may be used to identify”, then such term should also be used in the claim language to prevent any ambiguity.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the objection to the specification.
Argument #2: On pages 12 and 13, the Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that Meyers fails to disclose "in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition, dynamically readjusting a number of identifiers that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored in the plurality of partitions" as recited in claim 1 … However, this cited portion discusses splitting and combining key ranges in response to a repartitioning. That is, Meyers discusses adding or subtracting key range values to a given partition based on an increase or decrease to the storage of the partition. Meyers does not disclose a dynamic readjustment of a number of identifiers that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets, let alone a dynamic readjustment based on a number of data values that are stored in the plurality of partitions. Meyers therefore fails to disclose "in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition, dynamically readjusting a number of identifiers that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored in the plurality of partitions" as recited in claim 1”.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner did not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive because, Meyers teaches that if a partition size is not sufficient, partitions can be split and merged and along with it, dynamic readjustment of keys (i.e. identifiers that are assigned to each data set”) is carried out (Meyers, 9:47-52). Accordingly, Meyers teaches “in response to a determination to readjust the storage space of the at least one partition, dynamically readjusting a number of identifiers that are assigned to each data subset of the plurality of data subsets based on a number of data values that are stored in the plurality of partitions”. Thus if the number of data values is increased as a result of a merger, the keys corresponding to those data values, are dynamically adjusted. If the Applicant wishes to claim a method wherein readjustment of storage space does not include merging or splitting of partitions, then the claim language should clearly recite that. It is important to note that merging partitions corresponds to readjustment of space and keys.
The Examiner would like to note, that 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, MPEP § 2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01 I. Moreover, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, e.g., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01 II.
Accordingly, for the reasons recited above, the Examiner maintains rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and 102(a)(2).
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA M LIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8445. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 6:30 am - 2:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779.
All correspondence relating to this reissue proceeding should be directed:
Patent Center
Patent Center (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center) to file and manage your applications and requests. Visit the EFS-Web and Private PAIR Retirement (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/efs-web-and-private-pair-be-retired) and Patent Center Information pages for more information.
By Mail to: Mail Stop Reissue
Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Bulding
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Patent Center has 100% of the functionality of EFS-Web and Private PAIR, and is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. Attend a transition to Patent Center Training session (https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/patent-center) to learn more about filing and managing patent applications.
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights