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 .
This action is in response to the pre-appeal conference request filed on 05/04/2026. The pre-appeal conference request discusses the rejection of claim 1 and indicates that the dependent claims 7, 8, 14, and 20 are not obvious in view of Zhang because “in rejecting dependent claims 7, 8, 14, and 20, the Office Action relied on Zhang as applied to independent claim 1.” The request only argues claim 1.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action (i.e., Final rejection mailed on 02/20/22026) is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. This action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
In the 05/04/2026 pre-appeal conference request, Applicant argues:
(1) First, Zhang fails to disclose "receive a location query for a target data item to be located in a storage environment” because Zhang is “silent regarding a location query for a data item to be located in a storage environment” and that the cited step 705 appears to describe something different, namely a request to restore a previous backup.
(2) Second, Zhang also fails to disclose "determine a plurality of deduplication storage
systems based on the received location query, because the cited material (of Zhang) appears to be silent regarding determining a plurality of deduplication storage systems based on the "request to perform a restore operation" (i.e., the asserted location query) and that Zhang appears to describe a single storage system that is transitioning from an old fingerprint scheme to a new fingerprint scheme.
(3) Third, the cited material appears to be silent regarding determining a plurality of
deduplication storage systems that is a subset of the set of deduplication storage systems
included in a storage environment because Zhang only appears to describe a single storage system that is transitioning from an old fingerprint scheme to a new fingerprint
scheme. It is submitted that a single storage system (as described in Zhang) cannot properly
describe a plurality of systems that is a subset of a set of storage systems.
(4) Fourth, Zhang also fails to disclose "identify;, using the generated plurality of fingerprints that represent the target data item, potential storage locations of the target data item in the plurality of deduplication storage systems" because Zhang, the term "container ID" does not refer to a fingerprint that represents a data item, much less a "plurality of fingerprints" Therefore, the steps of Zhang are not arranged as required by claim 1, and thus Zhang fails to anticipate claim 1. See M.P.E.P. § 2131.
Examiner’s response to arguments:
As to argument 1, applicant appears to be relying on an interpretation of a “location query” that encompasses the subject matters of claim 2 (The computing device of claim 1, including instructions executable by the processor to: determine a particular user entity associated with the location query; and determine the plurality of deduplication storage systems to include each deduplication storage system that is accessible to the particular user entity).
Examiner notes that a dependent claims serves as legal evidence that its corresponding independent claim is intended to be broader in scope and a dependent claims provide documented evidence of alternative and/or a narrower embodiment of the invention in the independent claim.
According to MPEP 2112.02, “(u)nder the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. The applicant argues that Zhang teaches a request to restore a previous backup, but does not teach a “location query for a target item.” A restore operation must read a target data item and replaces the target data item by replacing and/or writing a substitute data item. In this case the previous backed up item is the target item. In claim 1, applicant’s intended invention reading the target items, comparing them, and preparing a report on them. As for reading the Zhang reference is doing what instant invention is doing, i.e., locating/reading the target data items.
It appears that the applicant has not reviewed the Zhang reference in its entirety, but only read the citations in the office action to limit Zhang’s teachings regarding the “location query.”
Applicant read and reviewed the citations in the office action, however, may not have paid attention to the following relevant teachings of Zhang:
Zhang
Col. 3, lines 34-42
(22) During a backup, clients and/or computing systems can duplicate data within a set of data to be backed up. In addition, if a set of data is backed up multiple times, the data that is unchanged also results in duplicates of previously backed up data. In order to prevent backing up duplicate data from a client or multiple clients, backup systems can implement deduplication, which is a process for removing duplicate copies of data. Deduplication preserves storage space when backing up data from client systems.
Zhang, paragraph [33] Computing device 10 is coupled to local storage 70. In this example, local storage 70 stores container file 80, but can also store data in other formats (not shown). Local storage 70 can be a persistent storage device and can include one or more of a variety of different storage devices, including hard disks, compact discs, digital versatile discs, solid state drive (SSD) memory such as flash memory, and the like, or one or more logical storage devices such as volumes implemented on one or more such physical storage devices.”
Zhang, Col 9, lines 40-56
[59] FIG. 3A illustrates another embodiment of a deduplication server 210. Deduplication server 210 includes a backup module 310 (which includes a cache module 320), a deduplication module 330, a deduplication data storage 260, and a storage management module 350. Backup module 310, along with cache module 320, coordinate with other client systems to enable a backup of a client's system. For example, backup module 320 handles the receipt of queries from client systems and/or the transmission of responses or messages from the deduplication server to a client system. A response or message from the deduplication server to a client system can include a list of matching fingerprints, a message indicating that a data segment and/or data object exists within the deduplication server, and/or a message indicating that a particular data segment and/or data object will be protected from inadvertent deletion during the course of a backup process.
Zhang, Col. 9, lines 57-67
[60] Cache module 320 references storage management module 350 to determine which data segments, data objects, and/or data segment fingerprints exist within deduplicating server 210. Storage management module 350 maintains information regarding data objects performed on each client system, data segments, and/or data segment fingerprints. Thus, storage management module 350 can add information received from a client (e.g. a data object, data segment, or data segment fingerprint) to update its information or can retrieve the necessary information to respond to a client query (e.g., from computing device 10).
Col. 12, line 20-36
(72) FIG. 4C is a simplified block diagram illustrating components of an example backup identifier (ID) list. Backup ID list 460 includes several entries, where each list entry corresponds to a backup image stored in deduplicated data store 260. Backup ID list 460 stores various metadata about the backup image files stored in deduplicated data store 260 (e.g., file name, file path, file attributes, fingerprints, etc.). In the embodiment shown, each list entry includes a backup identifier (ID) 465 of a corresponding backup image stored in deduplicated data store 260. Backup ID 465 is the combination of a client name 475 (e.g., a name of a client or computing device (e.g., computing device 10) performing and/or requesting a backup process to create a present backup image), a policy name 480 (e.g., a name of a backup policy created for the client), and a timestamp 485 of the corresponding backup image (e.g., a time when the backup image is created for the client).
Zhang, paragraph [94] – “ FIG. 7B is a flowchart that illustrates a process for performing data replication during a change in a hashing algorithm. The process begins at 735 by detecting a request to perform a replication operation (e.g., from computing device 10 and/or client system). At 740, the process accesses data objects that reference both old (second) and new (first) fingerprints. At 745, the process retrieves a subset of data segments (e.g., data segments 130(1)-(2)) that still have the second fingerprint (e.g., entries 1 or 2 as shown in FIG. 4C).”
See MPEP 2112, “(t)he express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It appears that the 02/02/2026 office action did not cite all the relevant teachings of Zhang. The new rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth hereinbelow attempts to address the applicant’s concerns.
This case is being re-opened to address the claim limitation, “..retrieving of a set of deduplication storage systems relevant to the location query... “ which Zhang does not teach explicitly. A new reference, US PG-PUB 20230058870 A1 published 2023 February 23, issued to Huang et al., has been added to the new 103 rejection.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 9-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9952933 issued to Zhang et al. , published 2018-04-24, hereinafter "Zhang,” in view of US PG-PUB 20230058870 A1 published 2023 February 23, issued to Huang et al., hereinafter “Huang”
Regarding claim 1,
Zhang teaches, a computing device comprising:
a processor;
a memory (Zhang, Fig. 1A-B); and
a machine-readable storage storing instructions, the instructions executable by the processor to:
receive (Fig. 7, step 705, "detecting a request") a location query for a (Zhang, col. 6, line 28, "data segment location," col. 9, lines 17-20, "location of each data segment"; Fig. 7A, steps 705, 710, 715; request from a client; col. 15, line 33-34, "At 715, the process locates data segments based on the container ID of the data segments") target data item to be located in a storage environment including deduplication storage systems that use different hashing schemes (Zhang col. 11, lines 20-24, "each fingerprint entry 20 includes a first fingerprint calculated using a first fingerprinting algorithm, a second fingerprint previously-calculated using a second fingerprinting algorithm, and locations 420(1)-(N)." The "first finger printing algorithm" and "second fingerprinting algorithm" are equated with the "different hashing schemes")
determine one or more deduplication storage systems based on the received location query, wherein the deduplication storage systems (Fig. 1A-B, element 70, col. 5, lines 12-20, "Local storage 70 can be a persistent storage device and can include one or more of a variety of different storage devices, or one or more logical storage devices such as volumes implemented on one or more such physical storage devices") is a subset (In Fig. 7A-B, at 745, the process retrieves a subset of data segments (e.g., data segments 130(1)-(2)) that still have the second fingerprint ( e.g., entries 1 or 2 as shown in FIG. 4C)"of the set of deduplication storage systems included in the storage environment;"
determine a plurality of hashing schemes ( Zhang, col. 11, lines 15-28 "first finger printing algorithm" and "second fingerprinting algorithm") used by the plurality of deduplication storage systems, respectively;
generate a plurality of fingerprints that represent the target data item, wherein each of plurality of fingerprints is generated by applying, to the target data item, a different hashing scheme (Zhang, col. 11, lines 15-28) of the plurality of hashing schemes used by the plurality of deduplication storage systems;
identify, using the generated plurality of fingerprints that represent the target data item, potential storage locations of the target data item in the plurality of deduplication storage systems; (Zhang, col. 16, lines 24-39, "in FIG. 7B the source side is a client system (e.g., computing device 10) and the target side is a server (e.g., deduplication server 210) the client system does not need to calculate fingerprints the source side first loads data object A which is to be replicated, and then retrieves data object B of the last full backup from the target side (e.g., from the server). The client system on the source side then compares a fingerprint list of data objects A and B (e.g., list A and list B). If a fingerprint exists in list A, but does not exist in list B, the client system queries the cache in the target side"); In order for the client to compare the fingerprints, the client has to identify the fingerprints first; see also Zhang, col. 11, lines 24-34, " in FIG. 4A, both the old and new fingerprints of a data segment and a location ( or container ID) of the data segment are stored in the data segment's corresponding fingerprint entry. Deduplicated data store 260 stores fingerprints FPI and FPI' are identifiers of a respective data segment stored in deduplicated data store 260. Location 420 is an identifier of a location of where a respective data segment is stored in deduplicated data store 260, such as an identifier of a storage container (e.g., container ID) that includes the respective data segment;";
generate a location report based on the identified potential storage locations in the plurality of deduplicated systems (see Zhang, Fig. 4B, col. 11, lines 52-61, "FIG. 4B Fingerprint cache 140 is to store a subset of fingerprint entries retrieved from index file 90, in deduplication server cache 410 or local storage 70 each fingerprint entry includes both first (new) and second (old) fingerprints (shown as FPI, FPI' and FP2, FP2' etc.), locations of the old and new fingerprints shown as offsets 450(1)-(N)), and a segment size of the data segments (shown as sizes 440(1)-(N))." The offsets are equivalent to the locations as recited in the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Zhang, even though teaches the use of one or more of different storage devices (see Zhang [33], Computing device 10 is coupled to local storage 70. In this example, local storage 70 stores container file 80, but can also store data in other formats (not shown). Local storage 70 can be a persistent storage device and can include one or more of a variety of different storage devices, including hard disks, compact discs, digital versatile discs, solid state drive (SSD) memory such as flash memory, and the like, or one or more logical storage devices such as volumes implemented on one or more such physical storage devices), it does not explicitly indicate using a “set of deduplication storage systems,” and the step of determining a plurality of deduplication storage systems based on the received location query.” In other words, Zhang does not expressly teach the retrieving of a set of deduplication storage systems relevant to the location query.
With respect to claim 1, Huang teaches a method for processing data in a heterogeneous data storage environment wherein a scanning module retrieves a subset of fingerprints for a selected subset of records.
See Huang, [0055] ((t)he scanning module 210 may then scan only the selected subset of data records 342-364 from the data storages 302-324. After accessing/retrieving the selected subset of data records 342-364, the fingerprint generation module 206 may analyze the data included in the selected subset of data records 342-364. … subset of data records… with an origin specified in the data scanning request (e.g., a particular user account,..). Huang further teaches (see [0069] a the Huang fingerprint generation module 206 may generate a data fingerprint for the data storage based on the analysis of the subset of data records and the metadata. In some embodiments, the fingerprint indicates a likelihood that the data storage includes the data of interest specified in the data scanning request. Huang also teaches (see [0071] The process 400 then classifies (at step 430) the data storages based on the first scan and the second scan…., the scan manager 202 may detect any data of interest within the data storages based on the second scan. When the data of interest is detected in a data storage, the scan manager 202 may record the data record identifier and classify the data storage as having the data of interest. In some embodiments, the scan manager 202 may transmit a report to the device that submitted the data scan request. The report may indicate which of the data storages 302-324 and which records within the data storages includes the data of interest.
The scan manager 202 may also perform an action to the data of interest, for example, removing the data of interest (or the records that include the data of interest) from the data storages.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang and Huang because both the references are directed to the same field of endeavor, and because Huang identifies the need for developing a tool to detect and/or classify data in a heterogeneous data storage environment (see Huang, [0004]) and the incorporation of Huang teachings in Zhang would have fulfilled a customer's request to access and/or remove data associated with the customer, the data scanning system may need to determine whether the data storage includes data associated the customer (see Huang, [0020]).
Huang [0004]
As the data may be duplicated and/or stored across different data storages (e.g., different databases, different machines, different data centers, etc.), it becomes increasingly difficult for the organization to keep track of the types of data in its possession. In order to comply with the organization's own privacy policy and/or regulations imposed by the government, the organization needs to know what type of information (e.g., personal identifiable information, health information, etc.) is stored in each of the data storages. Exacerbating the problem, different jurisdictions may have different standards with respect to handling certain types of information. Thus, there is a need for developing a tool to detect and/or classify data in a heterogeneous data storage environment.
Huang [0020]
In some embodiments, in order to determine whether the data included within the subset of data records is associated with a customer and/or a particular geographical region/jurisdiction, the data scanning system may be required to determine an origin of the data (e.g., the user or user information associated with the data). For example, when the request for the data scan is associated with complying with a data privacy regulation of a jurisdiction, the data scanning system may need to determine whether the data storage includes data of users from that jurisdiction. In another example, when the data scan request is to fulfill a customer's request to access and/or remove sensitive data associated with the customer, the data scanning system may need to determine whether the data storage includes data associated with that customer.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2,
Zhang teaches the step to determine a particular user entity associated with the location query; and determine the plurality of deduplication storage systems to include each deduplication storage system, as well as that the Zhang process is accessible to the particular user entity, because Zhang responds to a client query ("thus, storage management module 350 can add information received from a client (e.g. a data object, data segment, or data segment fingerprint) to update its information or can retrieve the necessary information to respond to a client query (e.g., from computing device 10). See Zhang, col. 9, lines 65-67.
Regarding claim 3,
Zhang teaches a computing device of claim 2, including instructions executable by the processor to, for each deduplication storage system of the plurality of deduplication storage systems: identify a set of fingerprint matches between the generated plurality of fingerprints and fingerprints stored in a set of metadata records of the deduplication storage system; and identify the potential storage locations of the target data item based on the set of metadata .
records of the deduplication storage system, because Zhang teaches matching new data segment with existing fingerprints that are stored in a metadata store. (See Zhang, col. 9, lines
32-39: "If a new data segment's fingerprint matches existing fingerprints (e.g., first fingerprint 150(1) and second fingerprint 110(1)) presently stored in metadata store 250 and associated with the new data segment, deduplication server 210 can determine that the new data segment is likely to be already stored within data segments 130 (e.g., the new data segment is a common data segment), and thus does not need to be written to deduplication data store 260.")
Regarding claim 4,
Zhang teaches a computing device of claim 3, including instructions executable by the processor to, for each deduplication storage system of the plurality of deduplication storage systems: translate, based on a mapping data structure, the potential storage locations into user visible objects; and generate the location report comprising a listing of the user visible objects, because Zhang teaches that its "Deduplication server 210 can create a new entry in metadata store 250 for a new data segment, and can store the data segment's location in the new entry. Deduplication server 210 can also add the new fingerprint of a data segment to the new entry associated with the corresponding data segment. Thus, in the embodiment shown, metadata store 250 can contain a new first signature 150(N+1) and a new location that correspond to a new data segment 130(N+1) that is stored in deduplicated data store 260.. See col. 9, lines 22- 27." Storing the new data segment and/or new fingerprints, and the locations of segment/fingerprints in a metadata store is equated with the making of user visible objects.
Zhang teaches a degree of confidence (i.e., probability) associated with each user visible object including in the location report, because Zhang improves the cache hit for fingerprint matching and identifies the likely candidates. See Zhang, col. 11, lines 64-67. (" storing relevant and frequently accessed fingerprint entries in fingerprint cache 140 improves the likelihood of fingerprint cache hits, since the data segments corresponding to the relevant fingerprint entries are likely candidates to be reused as part of a new backup operation for data segments that have not changed since a previous (or initial) backup operation. "). The likelihood is equated with the probability and confidence level of cache hits.
Regarding claim 5,
Zhang teaches a degree of confidence (i.e., probability) associated with each user visible object including in the location report, because Zhang improves the cache hit for fingerprint matching and identifies the likely candidates. See Zhang, col. 11, lines 64-67. (" storing relevant and frequently accessed fingerprint entries in fingerprint cache 140 improves the likelihood of fingerprint cache hits, since the data segments corresponding to the relevant fingerprint entries are likely candidates to be reused as part of a new backup operation for data segments that have not changed since a previous (or initial) backup operation. "). The likelihood is equated with the probability and confidence level of cache hits.
Regarding claim 6 (a computing device of claim 2, including instructions executable by the processor to: identify a source device that generated the location query; and determine, based on the identified source device, the particular user entity associated with the location query, Zhang teaches client devices wherein client is the user associated with the client device. See Zhang, col. 9, lines: "Thus, storage management module 350 can add information received from a client (e.g. a data object, data segment, or data segment fingerprint) to update its information or can retrieve the necessary information to respond to a client query (e.g., from computing device 10)."
Regarding claim 6 (a computing device of claim 2, including instructions executable by the processor to: identify a source device that generated the location query; and determine, based on the identified source device, the particular user entity associated with the location query, Zhang teaches client devices wherein client is the user associated with the client device. See Zhang, col. 9, lines: "Thus, storage management module 350 can add information received from a client (e.g. a data object, data segment, or data segment fingerprint) to update its information or can retrieve the necessary information to respond to a client query (e.g., from computing device 10)."
Claims 2-6, and 15-19 are essentially the same as claims 8 except they are directed to a method and computer program product respectively, and are rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 7 (each hashing scheme to includes a chunking algorithm and a hashing function,) Zhang teaches the use of hashing algorithm and generating hash values and digests ("A fingerprint is a value generated for a given data segment. Typically, such fingerprint values need to be substantially unique to each data segment, and thus distinguish data segments from one another. An example of a fingerprint is a hash value. For example, hashing algorithms (also called fingerprinting algorithms) such as Rabin's Algorithm, Message-Digest Algorithm 5 (MD5), Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA-1), and Secure Hash Algorithm 256 (SHA-256) and the like can be used to generate hash values. The function of a hashing algorithm is to recreate input data from the hashing algorithm's hash value alone. The input data is typically referred to as the "message" and the hash value is typically referred to as the "message digest" or simply "digest." See Zhang, col. 3, lines 51-60.), however, does not explicitly indicate that generating digest is a chunking algorithm. Zhang teaches the use stronger cryptographic hash function (like SHA-1 or MD5) is used to generate a unique identifier (a "fingerprint" or "digest") for each block. It would have been obvious to one pf ordinary skills in the art to use a chunking algorithm because Zhang teaches dividing the image files into fixed-size chunks (see Zhang, col. 8, lines 1-4, "backup image file can be divided into a plurality of chunks, and each chunk can be divided into a plurality of fixed-size data segments. The person of ordinary skill would be motivated by Zhang's suggestion that a deduplication system would have more efficient when fixed-sized chucks are used as the backup speed improves (see Zhang, col. 16, lines 1-10, the determination whether the subset of data retrieved is small enough not to affect backup speed can be made by a predetermined threshold or by a system/network administrator. If the subset is not small enough (e.g., the subset negatively affects backup speed), the process, at 755, retrieves a smaller subset of data segments than the previously retrieved subset of data segments. For example, the process can retrieve a small a smaller subset of data segments so that backup speed is not adversely affected.)
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 20, (the computing device of claim 1, including a plurality of deduplication storage systems: divide, based on the respective hashing scheme of the deduplication storage system, the target data item into a set of data units; generate, based on the respective hashing scheme of the deduplication storage system, a sequence of fingerprints for the set of data units; determine a match level between the generated sequence of fingerprints and a sequence of stored fingerprints of the deduplication storage system; and determine that the target data item is stored in the deduplication storage system in response to a determination that the match level exceeds a predefined threshold), Zhang teaches dividing the data units into a size based on a predetermined threshold, however, does not explicitly call the threshold a "match level." (see Zhang, col. 16, lines 1-10, the determination whether the subset of data retrieved is small enough not to affect backup speed can be made by a predetermined threshold or by a system/network administrator. If the subset is not small enough (e.g., the subset negatively affects backup speed), the process, at 755, retrieves a smaller subset of data segments than the previously retrieved subset of data segments. For example, the process can retrieve a small a smaller subset of data segments so that backup speed is not adversely affected
It would have been obvious to one pf ordinary skills in the art to use a chunking algorithm because Zhang teaches dividing the image files into fixed-size chunks (see Zhang, col. 8, lines 1- 4, "backup image file can be divided into a plurality of chunks, and each chunk can be divided into a plurality of fixed-size data segments." The person of ordinary skill would be motivated by Zhang's suggestion that a deduplication system would have more efficient when fixed-sized chucks are used as the backup speed improves (see Zhang, col. 16, lines 1-10).
Claims 14 and 20 are essentially the same as claims 8 except they are directed to a method and computer program product respectively, and are rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 above.
Response to Request for Reconsideration in the Pre-Appeal Conference Request
Applicant’s arguments, as presented in the pre-appeal conference request, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection mailed on 02/02/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. This action is non-final.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights