DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 04/24/2024. Claims 1 – 4 and 6 - 21 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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The type of memory used in the system is not descriptive with regard to what the system is doing specifically
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 – 10, 14 – 15, 17 – 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippatapu et al. (Pat 11,409,667) referred to as Ippatapu in view of Garry Kranz (storage class memory (SCM)) referred to as Kranz in view of Garg et al. (Pat 9,733,836) referred to as Garg.
Regarding claim 1, Ippatapu teaches a method for data deduplication [Figs 2 – 5 and 8; The device(s) that operate the methods disclosed is considered processing circuitry of the system] of a storage apparatus [100, Fig 1], the storage apparatus [100, Fig 1] including a storage class memory (SCM) and a flash memory [132, Fig 1; Column 3, Lines 25 – 39; The memory is comprised of multiple memory types include SCM and flash], and the method comprising:
searching for a fingerprint in fingerprint data stored in memory [160, Figs 1 - 5; Column 4, Lines 58 – 67; Column 5, Lines 1 – 12; The Fingerprints are stored in a table in memory] to obtain a first search result [160, Figs 1 – 5; 810, Fig 8; Column 5, Lines 1 – 24; A write request results in a search of previously stored fingerprints to see if the write data matches previously written data. The first search result is the outcome of step 810], the fingerprint [160, Figs 1 – 5] being generated based on written data, the written data being input data received by the storage apparatus [Figs 2 – 5; The fingerprints are generated based on data that is written to the storage system to allow the written data to be analyzed for deduplication purposes] and the searching [810, Fig 8] being performed based on receiving a request to write data [800, Fig 8]; and
writing the written data to the flash memory [132, Fig 1; Column 3, Lines 25 – 39; The memory is comprised of multiple memory types include SCM and flash] based on the first search result [810, Fig 8] indicating that the fingerprint is not present in the fingerprint data [Fig 3; 810 and 815, Fig 8].
However, Ippatapu may not specifically disclose the limitation of using SCM to store fingerprint data and searching for a fingerprint based on at least one of a controller workload being less than a first threshold or a data deduplication rate being greater than a first data deduplication rate.
Kranz teaches using SCM to store fingerprint data [Page 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kranz in Ippatapu, because the SCM is faster than SSDs, HDDs, is more durable than DRAM, and has a higher read and write speed than NAND drives [Page 1].
However, Ippatapu in view of Kranz may not specifically disclose the limitation(s) of searching for a fingerprint based on at least one of a controller workload being less than a first threshold or a data deduplication rate being greater than a first data deduplication rate.
Garg discloses searching for a fingerprint based on at least one of a controller workload being less than a first threshold [Column 10, Lines 1 – 2, Column 11, Lines 1 – 12; The writing load is an indication of the controller workload since a controller is the device that performs the reads and writes of data to and from memory. Deduplication is performed, which includes the searching for matching fingerprints, when the load on the controller is below a certain level] or a data deduplication rate being greater than a first data deduplication rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Garg in Ippatapu in view of Kranz, because it improves user experience by performing deduplication at times when the load on the system is lower [Column 1, Lines 40 – 49].
Regarding claim 6, Ippatapu teaches the method [Figs 2 – 5 and 8] further comprises:
writing the fingerprint into the fingerprint data [160, Figs 1 – 5] based on the first search result [810, Fig 8] indicating that the fingerprint is not present in the fingerprint data [Fig 3; 815, Fig 8; When a new fingerprint does not match a previously stored fingerprint the new fingerprint is stored in the fingerprint table].
Regarding claim 7, Ippatapu teaches the fingerprint is a first fingerprint [160, Figs 1 – 5; A first fingerprint that the system processes is a first fingerprint];
the written data is first written data [810, Fig 8; First data that is written is considered first written data];
the method [Figs 2 – 5 and 8] further comprises:
inserting first mapping information into a logical-physical (L2P) mapping table, the first mapping information mapping a first logical address to a first physical address [Column 3, Lines 66 – 67; Column 4, Lines 1 – 49; 140 is a logical abstraction layer showing it uses logical addresses. The logical address of data in 140 is mapped to the physical blocks in 132 showing the logical addresses are mapped to physical addresses], and the first physical address being an address of the first written data [Figs 2 - 3; 810 and 815, Fig 8; Column 3, Lines 66 – 67; Column 4, Lines 1 – 49; A no match result shows the mapping information for new data is the physical address in 132 where the new data is stored],
searching for a second fingerprint in the fingerprint data stored in the memory [160, Figs 1 – 5] to obtain a second search result, the second fingerprint being generated based on second write data [805 and 810; Each time data is to be written a fingerprint of the to be written data is determined and search against previously stored fingerprints in memory]; and
inserting second mapping information into the L2P mapping table, the second mapping information mapping a second logical address to a second physical address, the second physical address being an address of first data stored in the flash memory [132, Fig 1; Column 3, Lines 25 – 39; The memory is comprised of multiple memory types include SCM and flash] based on the second search result indicating that the second fingerprint is present in the fingerprint data [160, Figs 1 – 5], and the first data corresponding to the second fingerprint [Figs 4 - 5; 810 and 820, Fig 8; Column 3, Lines 66 – 67; Column 4, Lines 1 – 49; A match shows the mapping information for new data is the physical address in 132 of where previous data is stored].
Regarding claim 9, Ippatapu teaches the method further comprises generating, by a hardware accelerator [154, Fig 1], the fingerprint based on the written data [270, Fig 6; Column 5, Lines 1 – 24; Item 270 generates fingerprints based on the data in the write request], the hardware accelerator [154, Fig 1] being included in the storage apparatus [100, Fig 1]; and
the searching, is performed by the hardware accelerator [154, Fig 1; Column 5, 810, Fig 8; Lines 25 – 34; Item 158 contains the modules that check for fingerprints for the deduplication process].
Claims 10, 14 – 15, 17 – 18 and 20 are corresponding system and apparatus of claims 1, 6 – 7, and 9 and are rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning. where Ippatapu shows a system [Fig 1] that contains a main processor [110, Fig 1], a main memory [106, Fig 1], and a storage apparatus [100, Fig 1].
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippatapu et al. (Pat 11,409,667) referred to as Ippatapu in view of Garry Kranz (storage class memory (SCM)) referred to as Kranz in view of Garg et al. (Pat 9,733,836) referred to as Garg as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Knestele et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0092138) referred to as Knestele.
Regarding claim 8, Ippatapu teaches the method further comprises:
the use of mapping tables to store a mapping between logical and physical addresses [Column 3, Lines 66 – 67; Column 4, Lines 1 – 49; 140 is a logical abstraction layer showing it uses logical addresses. The logical address of data in 140 is mapped to the physical blocks in 132 showing the logical addresses are mapped to physical addresses].
Kranz discloses storing data in SCM [Page 1].
However, Ippatapu in view of Kranz in view of Garg may not specifically disclose the limitations of inserting reverse mapping information of the physical address to the logical address into a reverse mapping table, wherein the reverse mapping table is stored in the memory.
Knestele discloses inserting reverse mapping information of the physical address to the logical address into a reverse mapping table, wherein the reverse mapping table is stored in the memory [Figs 5B, 7B, and 7D].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Knestele in Ippatapu in view of Kranz in view of Garg, because it provides a way in deduplication to reduce the amount of data movement, reduce write amplification, and extend the lifespan of the memory [Paragraphs 0049 and 0056 - 0057].
Claim 16 is a corresponding system of claim 8 and rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 11 – 13, 19, and 21 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:
The prior art teaches the use of deduplication based on fingerprints of data. However, the prior art individually or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitations of ...
(Claim 2) “…sampling a first controller workload to obtain the samples controller workload, and sampling a first data duplication rate to obtain the sampled data duplication rate; and the searching is performed based on, the sampled controller workload being less than the first threshold, and the sampled data duplication rate being greater than the first data duplication rate.”
Claims 11 – 13 and 19 are apparatus and system corresponding to claim 2 and are thus objected to for containing similar allowable limitations as claim 2.
(Claim 21) “…the searching is performed based on: the controller workload being less than the first threshold; and the data duplication rate being greater than the first data duplication rate.”
All remaining claim are dependent on an allowable objected base claim and thus incorporate the allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 15 that the amendment to the title of the invention overcomes the previous objection to the title for not being descriptive. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Listing the type of memory in a system is not enough to be considered a descriptive title. The type of memory does not describe how the deduplication is performed compared to any other deduplication.
The applicant argues on pages 16 - 18 are allowable based on the amendments to the independent claims which are argued as containing similar limitations as claim 2. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendments to the independent claims have a different scope than what is in claim 2 previously and currently. The independent claims currently require the searching to be based on one of two possible criteria where claim 2 requires the searching to be based on both criteria. This difference in scope is indicated in the updated rejections above in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136
Prosecution Insights