Detailed Action
The instant application having Application No. 18/398,524 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner. This Office action is in response to the claims filed 1/28/26. Claims 21-28 and 30-41 are pending.
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 21-28 and 30-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11868636 and claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11284588. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed inventions are directed to managing adjusting garbage collection for a storage system as a function of the data characteristics and placement of data on the storage system; where after a cursory inspection of both claimed inventions a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the minor differences to be obvious variants.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0024599), herein referred to as Huang et al.
Referring to claim 21, Huang et al. disclose as claimed, a method comprising: determining an expected longevity of a data element, wherein the expected longevity represents an estimated amount of time until an event occurs that causes the data element to become invalid (see para. 29, where a likely lifespan of data or predicted life is the time between when data is written and when it is declared obsolete. See para. 67-68 where identifying a likely lifespan for content is used for classification, and a lifespan is determined using several factors such as history, usage and geography); identifying a location within a storage device for storing the data element based on the expected longevity (see para. 29, where a class information is used to select a suitable erasable block or group, which reflects the likely lifespan of the data): and storing the data element in the location (see para. 18, where data of an expected life span and same class is stored together in the same SSD erase block)
Claims 28 and 35 recite similar limitations and would be rejected using the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Rub (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0023144), herein referred to as Rub.
As to claim 22, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the method of claim 21, further comprising in response to storing the data element, adjusting a garbage collection schedule for the storage device.
However, Rub discloses in response to storing the data element, adjusting a garbage collection schedule for the storage device (see para. 79-80, where a garbage collection is either decreased or increased depending on the wear of a particular area, which is a result of storing data elements).
Huang et al. and Rub are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory groupings (see Huang et al., abstract and Rub, abstract, regarding memory groupings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise in response to storing the data element, adjusting a garbage collection schedule for the storage device, as taught by Rub, in order to decrease write amplification caused by garbage collection (see Rub, para. 52, where adjusting garbage collection based on wear level or access frequency can reduce write amplification).
Claims 23, 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Rub and in view of Jamison (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0160416), herein referred to as Jamison.
As to claim 23, Huang et al. and Rub disclose the claimed invention except for the method of claim 21 further comprising providing, garbage collection statistics including information describing an actual longevity of one or more data elements.
However, Jamison discloses providing, garbage collection statistics including information describing an actual longevity of one or more data elements (see para. 9, where garbage collection statistics are collected through a utility called verbosegc used by java programmers).
Huang et al. and Jamison are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory (see Huang et al., abstract and Jamison, abstract, regarding memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise providing, garbage collection statistics including information describing an actual longevity of one or more data elements., as taught by Jamison, in order to improve performance by allocating data more efficiently. Huang et al. already uses statistics to allocate data and more information would allow for more informed decisions and increased performance.
Claims 30 and 37 recite similar limitations and would be rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Anglin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,567,188), herein referred to as Anglin et al.
As to claim 24, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the method of claim 21 further comprising: storing data elements with no deduplicated references in a same area of the storage device.
However, Anglin et al. disclose storing data elements with no deduplicated references in a same area of the storage device (see col. 2, lines 50-67, where data is classified by deduplicated references. See col. 7, lines 5-35. Also see col. 6, lines 30-67, describing 3 tiers of data all with similar levels of deduplicated data stored in the tiers stored in a same area, including the gold tier which contains no deduplicated references in a same area).
Huang et al. and Anglin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory (see Huang et al., abstract and Anglin et al., abstract, regarding memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise storing data elements with no deduplicated references in a same area of the storage device, as taught by Anglin, in order to tune policies and optimize restore performance for certain data (see col. 2, lines 10-20, regarding advantages of deduplicated tiers of data).
Claims 31 and 38 recite similar limitations and would be rejected using the same rationale.
As to claim 25, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the method of claim 21 further comprising, storing data elements with one or more deduplicated references in a same area of the storage device.
However, Anglin et al. disclose storing data elements with one or more deduplicated references in a same area of the storage device (see col. 2, lines 50-67, where data is classified by deduplicated references. See col. 7, lines 5-35. Also see col. 6, lines 30-67, describing 3 tiers of data all with similar levels of deduplicated data stored in the tiers stored in a same area).
Huang et al. and Anglin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory (see Huang et al., abstract and Anglin et al., abstract, regarding memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise storing data elements with one or more deduplicated references in a same area of the storage device, as taught by Anglin, in order to tune policies and optimize restore performance for certain data (see col. 2, lines 10-20, regarding advantages of deduplicated tiers of data).
Claims 32 and 39 recite similar limitations and would be rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 26-27, 33-34, 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Rub and in view of Anglin et al.
As to claim 26, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the method of claim 21, further comprising performing garbage collection operations at an increased frequency on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references in comparison to areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references.
However, Rub discloses performing garbage collection operations at an increased frequency on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references in comparison to areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references (see para. 79-80, where a garbage collection is either decreased or increased depending on the wear of a particular area or use. When combined with Huang et al. and Anglin et al., which teaches grouping data by frequency of use and deduplication references, this would result in performing garbage collection more on areas that contain no deduplicated references).
Huang et al. and Rub are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory groupings (see Huang et al., abstract and Rub, abstract, regarding memory groupings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise performing garbage collection operations at an increased frequency on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references in comparison to areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references, as taught by Rub, in order to decrease write amplification caused by garbage collection (see Rub, para. 52, where adjusting garbage collection based on wear level or access frequency can reduce write amplification).
Huang et al. and Rub disclose the claimed invention except for where the data is grouped by deduplicated reference count.
However, Anglin et al. disclose where the data is grouped by deduplicated reference count (see col. 2, lines 50-67, where data is classified by deduplicated references. See col. 7, lines 5-35. Also see col. 6, lines 30-67, describing 3 tiers of data all with similar levels of deduplicated data stored in the tiers stored in a same area).
Huang et al. and Anglin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory (see Huang et al., abstract and Anglin et al., abstract, regarding memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise where the data is grouped by deduplicated reference count, as taught by Anglin, in order to tune policies and optimize restore performance for certain data (see col. 2, lines 10-20, regarding advantages of deduplicated tiers of data).
Claims 33 and 36 recite similar limitations and would be rejected using the same rationale.
As to claim 27, Huang et al., Rub and Anglin et al. also disclose the method of claim 26, further comprising prioritizing garbage collection operations on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references instead of areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references (see Rub, para. 79-80, where a garbage collection is either decreased or increased depending on the wear of a particular area or use. When combined with Huang et al. and Anglin et al., which teaches grouping data by frequency of use and deduplication references, this would result in performing garbage collection more on areas that contain no deduplicated references. See Anglin et al., col. 2, lines 50-67, where data is classified by deduplicated references. See col. 7, lines 5-35. Also see col. 6, lines 30-67, describing 3 tiers of data all with similar levels of deduplicated data stored in the tiers stored in a same area, including gold tier that contains no deduplicated references and silver tier that contains one or more deduplicated references ).
Claims 34 and 40 recite similar limitations and would be rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,183,200), herein referred to as Liu et al.
As to claim 41, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 35, the processing device further configured to: prioritize garbage collection operations on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references instead of areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references.
However, Liu et al. disclose prioritize garbage collection operations on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references instead of areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references (see col. 9, lines 19-40, where deduplication engine triggers garbage collection for records that include a reference list without any reference data objects, which have a count of zero, which would mean prioritizing garbage collection on areas that lack deduplicated references).
Huang et al. and Liu et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data storage (see Huang et al., abstract and Liu et al., abstract, regarding data storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang et al. to comprise prioritize garbage collection operations on areas of the storage device that contain data elements lacking deduplicated references instead of areas of the storage device that contain data elements with one or more deduplicated references, as taught by Liu et al., in order to keep the items that are likely to be used again due to the number of deduplicated references vs garbage collecting items that are less likely to be used, based on the lack of deduplicated references. This would allow for increased memory efficiency and speed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/28/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang et al. and Liu et al.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
a(1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 21-28 and 30-41 stand rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN OTTO whose telephone number is (571)270-1626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.O/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights