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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are active in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/10/2025 have been considered.
The arguments are drawn to the newly recited limitations. The new ground of rejection as necessitated by the amendment is presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method therefore the claim is a process. Claim 8 recites an apparatus therefore the claim is a machine. Claim 15 recites a computer program product.
Step 2:
Step 2A: Prong One: yes, invention directed to judicial exception of abstract idea.
In claims 1, 8, and 15, limitation reciting the abstract idea are as follows:
“determining …”, “switching...”, is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and applied in a computing environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that “humans have always performed these functions”). See, e.g., Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes”).
The limitations are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or generic tools. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, the it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The computer processor and the computer memory in the claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than abstract idea. Aside from the abstract idea, the additional elements are conventional and well known.
Additionally, dependent claims incorporate the features of the corresponding independent claims, however, the dependent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 recite determining that the availability of resources has changed comprises a change in an availability of processing resources or an availability of storage resources. This is similarly insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea without reciting significant more.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 recite switching from the first data compression algorithm to the second data compression algorithm reduces usage of one or more of the storage resources. This is similarly insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea without reciting significant more.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 recite determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding amounts of data reduction to be achieved by compressing the data utilizing the data compression algorithm, wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding amount of data reduction for the second data compression algorithm. This is similarly insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea without reciting significant more.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 recite determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding decompression speeds associated with decompressing the data; wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding decompression speed for the second data compression algorithm. This is similarly insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea without reciting significant more.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 recite determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding average decompression speeds associated with decompressing a pool of data, wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding average decompression speed associated with decompressing the pool of data for the second data compression algorithm. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea without reciting significant more.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Randall (US 9,400,609).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Randall discloses a method, an apparatus including a computer processor and a computer memory and a computer program product (Col. 1, lines 46-47), comprising:
determining whether an availability of resources to a storage system has changed during operation of the storage system (Col. 2, lines 4-14, Col. 6, lines 21-67, and Col. 7, lines 12-54); and
in responses to determining that the availability of resources has changed, switching from a first data compression data algorithm used by the storage system to a second data compression algorithm (Col. 2, lines 4-14, Col. 6, lines 21-67, and Col. 7, lines 12-54).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Randall discloses determining that the availability of resources has changed comprises a change in an availability of processing resources or an availability of storage resources (Col. 2, lines 4-14, Col. 6, lines 21-67, and Col. 7, lines 12-54).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Randall discloses switching from the first data compression algorithm to the second data compression algorithm reduces usage of one or more of the storage resources (Col. 2, lines 4-14, Col. 6, lines 21-67, and Col. 7, lines 12-54).
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.
6. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall (US 9,400,609) in view of Iyengar (US 2007/0038738).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Randall discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above. However, Randall is silent as to determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding amounts of data reduction to be achieved by compressing the data utilizing the data compression algorithm, wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding amount of data reduction for the second data compression algorithm. On the other hand, Iyengar discloses determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding amounts of data reduction to be achieved by compressing the data utilizing the data compression algorithm (Iyengar: [0025]-[0030], “When the system has sufficient resources available as determined by step 40, it can choose to reduce the amount of data reduction and collect more data (step 42). This results in a higher degree of accuracy of information maintained in persistent storage 42”); wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding amount of data reduction for the second data compression algorithm (Iyengar: [0025]-[0030], “When the system has sufficient resources available as determined by step 40, it can choose to reduce the amount of data reduction and collect more data (step 42). This results in a higher degree of accuracy of information maintained in persistent storage 42” and ([0042]: “Compressing information reduces I/O bandwidth consumed as well as disk space utilization…to balance the need for low processing overhead and I/O bandwidth combined with disk space utilization” and [0043]: “For each compression algorithm, the system has an estimate of its overhead… and the amount of size reduction it is likely to result in. The system makes a determination of the CPU resources which are available for compression (step 61)”; and [0010], “This invention also provides for selective compression of data, wherein it is determined which of a number of compression algorithms do not incur an overhead that exceeds available resources. Then, one of the determined algorithms is selected to maximize compression”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding amounts of data reduction to be achieved by compressing the data utilizing the data compression algorithm, wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding amount of data reduction for the second data compression algorithm as suggested by Iyengar. The motivation would have been to maximize compression so that data can be efficiently aggregated or compressed before storage in persistent memory.
7. Claims 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall (US 9,400,609) in view of Condict (US 2013/0275396).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Randall discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above. However, Randall is silent as to determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding decompression speeds associated with decompressing the data; and wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding decompression speed for the second data compression algorithm. On the other hand, Condict teaches determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding decompression speeds associated with decompressing the data; (Condict: [0053]-[0054], “include a data compression/decompression speed limit, a memory usage limit, specifying if the particular file type is to be considered in the selection of the algorithm, or a CPU power demand limit, among others. Where a speed limit is specified, this may be a minimum acceptable data rate that must be attained in compression or decompression, and is typically specified in units of kilobytes per second (KB/s) or equivalent, or alternatively as a total time to compress or decompress the file, specified in units of seconds (s), or equivalent. Where a total time limit is specified, the limit processor 350 calculates a corresponding minimum acceptable data rate, using the known file size. For example, if the user-specified time limit to compress a 6000 KB file is 1 minute, then the limit processor 350 computes the calculated minimum acceptable data rate to be 6000/60 KB/s, which equals 100 KB/s. These limits are passed to the compression process selector 355 which can use the limits as selection parameters that can be compared against data rates stored in the lookup table data structure 320 to narrow the scope of the algorithm selection”); wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding decompression speed for the second data compression algorithm (Condict: [0053]-[0054], “These weights may, for example, rank the data decompression speed as the most important and therefore having the highest weight, the compression speed as second, the compression ratio achievable third, and the memory required for processing as fourth, and continue the ranking for as many metrics as there are stored in the table 320. During compression process selection, the corresponding algorithm search for this ranking may be the following: The compression process selector 355 first reduces the list of candidate compression processes based on whether the limit processor 350 required a selection for a specific file type, or a general purpose algorithm. The compression process selector 355 would subsequently excludes those algorithms that do not meet minimum decompression and compression speeds”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding decompression speeds associated with decompressing the data; and wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding decompression speed for the second data compression algorithm as suggested by Condict. The motivation would have been to provide more efficient compression algorithm selection method by excluding algorithms that do not meet minimum decompression and compression speeds.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Randall/Condict discloses determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding average decompression speeds associated with decompressing a pool of data (Condict: [0053]-[0057]), wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding average decompression speed associated with decompressing the pool of data for the second data compression algorithm (Condict: [0053]-[0057]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to discloses determining, for a plurality of data compression algorithms, corresponding average decompression speeds associated with decompressing a pool of data ]), wherein the first data compression algorithm is switched to the second data compression algorithm based on the corresponding average decompression speed associated with decompressing the pool of data for the second data compression algorithm as suggested by Condict. The motivation would have been to provide more efficient compression algorithm selecting method by excluding algorithms that do not meet threshold decompression and compression speeds.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garg (US 2019/0265893) discloses system and method for granular deduplication.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Merilyn P Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4026. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571) 272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
/MERILYN P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
January 24, 2026