DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 26th, 2026. The applicant’s remark and amendments to the claims were considered with the results that follow.
In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 5, 14, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. As a result, claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-12, filed on January 26th, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
The applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pg. 9 filed on January 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the claims are obvious variant. The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection over application 19/208,832 is maintained. A terminal disclaimer has not been filed yet.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-4, 6-11 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 6-12, and 14-16 of Application No. 19/208,832. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the U.S Application No. 19/208,832 and is covered by the application since the co-pending application and instant application are claiming common subject matters, as follows:
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 1
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claims 1 and 9
1. A data processing unit (DPU) comprising: a non-transitory storage device; and a data deduplication engine coupled to the non-transitory storage device comprising at least a processor, wherein the data deduplication engine is configured to:
receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location;
access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device; and
preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
1. A data processing unit (DPU) comprising: a non-transitory storage device; and a data deduplication engine coupled to the non-transitory storage device comprising at least a processor, wherein the data deduplication engine is to:
receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries associated with the data write operation;
determine a destination write location for the data write operation, wherein the destination write location is associated with one or more deduplication parameters;
access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and
9. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the data deduplication engine is configured to access the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission to the destination write location.
preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of co-pending Application No. 19/208,832 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is obvious variation of claims 1 and 9 of ARORA 832 because claim 1 of the instant application is broader than claims 1 and 9 of ARORA 832, and the limitation in ARORA 832 does not teach away from the scope of the claimed invention in claim 1 of the instant application. For example, U.S Patent Application No. 19/208,832 recites almost identical claims with the instant application except the bolded portion from the instant application that recites, “receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location” and “access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device”.
The claimed difference would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, because the instant claims are merely broader and/or alternate variations of the claim recited in the child application. Because the instant claims merely add/modify the additional elements from the set of elements and functions claimed in the parent application, such modification would be readily apparent to a person of the ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to omit/add/modify the additional element of claims 1 and 9 of ARORA 832 to arrive at claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same function as before. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the instant claims to adjust the write operation to include a alternative variation of receive a request for a data write operation associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location and access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device in performing the same set of function and steps as previously presented.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 2
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 6
2. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU.
6. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 recite similar limitations to claim 6 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 2 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 3
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 7
3. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein, in accessing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location, the data deduplication engine is configured to access a data repository storing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
7. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein, in accessing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location, the data deduplication engine is to access a data repository storing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 recite similar limitations to claim 7 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 4
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 8
4. The DPU according to Claim 3, wherein the data repository is distinct from the destination write location.
8. The DPU according to Claim 7, wherein the data repository is distinct from the destination write location.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 which is further dependent on claim 1 and recite similar limitations to claim 8 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 6
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 10
6. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the data deduplication engine is further configured to: compare the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and determine one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
10. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the data deduplication engine is further to: compare the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and determine one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 recite similar limitations to claim 10 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 7
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 11
7. The DPU according to Claim 6, wherein the data deduplication engine is further configured to: transmit the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device; receive data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers; and cause writing of the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location.
11. The DPU according to Claim 10, wherein the data deduplication engine is further to: transmit the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device; receive data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers; and cause writing of the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 which is further dependent on claim 1 recite similar limitations to claim 11 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 7 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 8
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 12
8. The DPU according to Claim 7, wherein a number of the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation is greater than a number of the absent data identifiers transmitted to the initiating device.
12. The DPU according to Claim 11, wherein a number of the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation is greater than a number of the absent data identifiers transmitted to the initiating device.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 which is dependent on claim 6 which is further dependent on claim 1 and recite similar limitations to claim 12 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 9
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 14
9. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more data identifiers comprise Secure Hash Algorithms (SHAs).
14. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more data identifiers comprise Secure Hash Algorithms (SHAs).
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 recite similar limitations to claim 14 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 10
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 15
10. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the data deduplication engine is configured to preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location in the absence of accessing data stored by the destination write location.
15. The DPU according to Claim 1, wherein the data deduplication engine is to preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location in the absence of accessing data stored by the destination write location.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 recite similar limitations to claim 15 of ARORA 832, therefore, claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as recited above.
Instant Application: 18/758,558 (hereinafter as “ARORA 558”)
Claim 11
U.S Application No. 19/208,832 (hereinafter as “ARORA 832”)
Claim 16
11. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a data processing unit (DPU) from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location;
accessing, by the DPU, one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and
precluding, by the DPU, writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
16. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a data processing unit (DPU) from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries associated with the data write operation;
determining, by the DPU, a destination write location for the data write operation, wherein the destination write location is associated with one or more deduplication parameters;
accessing, by the DPU, one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and
precluding, by the DPU, writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of co-pending Application No. 19/208,832 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is obvious variation of claim 16 of ARORA 832 because claim 11 of the instant application is broader than claim 16 of ARORA 832, and the limitation in ARORA 832 does not teach away from the scope of the claimed invention in claim 11 of the instant application. For example, U.S Patent Application No. 19/208,832 recites almost identical claims with the instant application except the bolded portion from the instant application that recites, “receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location”.
The claimed difference would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, because the instant claims are merely broader and/or alternate variations of the claim recited in the child application. Because the instant claims merely add/modify the additional elements from the set of elements and functions claimed in the parent application, such modification would be readily apparent to a person of the ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to omit/add/modify the additional element of claim 16 of ARORA 832 to arrive at claim 11 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same function as before. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the instant claims to adjust the write operation to include a alternative variation of receive a request for a data write operation associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location in performing the same set of function and steps as previously presented.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,792,306 issued to Jeremy Wartnick (hereinafter as "Wartnick") in view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2018/0081561 issued to Todd et al. (hereinafter as “Todd”) in further view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2025/0225112 issued to Fraenkel-Saban et al. (hereinafter as “Fraenkel-Saban”).
Regarding claim 1, Wartnick teaches a data processing unit (DPU) comprising: a non-transitory storage device (Wartnick: Col 21, lines 8-13; The computer-readable medium containing the computer program may be loaded into computing system 1110. All or a portion of the computer program stored on the computer-readable medium may then be stored in system memory 1116 and/or various portions of storage devices 1132 and 1133); and a data deduplication engine coupled to the non-transitory storage device comprising at least a processor, wherein the data deduplication engine is configured to (Wartnick: Col 6, lines 13-18; Deduplication module 142, is configured to employ a deduplication schema, or methodology. Deduplication module 142 can be implemented as a deduplication engine. The deduplication methodology or schema employed by deduplication module 142 can be set up by a user, such as an administrator): receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation (Wartnick: Col 5, lines 9-11; The applications executed by clients 110 are configured to access data 112, for example, by virtue of being configured to read and/or write to data 112. Col 5, lines 20-21; Clients 110 are shown coupled to a source computing device 140 via a network 130. Col 8, lines 37-40; To perform migration between systems employing deduplication, destination computing device 150 is configured to receive one or more fingerprints from a source computing device), wherein the data write operation:
access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 5, lines 20-21; Clients 110 are shown coupled to a source computing device 140 via a network 130. Col 9, lines 2-3; For example, source computing device 140 can send a message with one or more fingerprints and indicate that the fingerprints are, for example, MD5 type fingerprints. Col 9, lines 5-9; In response to receiving such information, destination computing device 150, specifically fingerprint lookup module 154, is configured to determine whether or not a sub-index for the received type of fingerprints already exists, for example in fingerprint lookup table 176. Col 10, lines 62-65; If the message includes information identifying the type of fingerprints included in the message, type identification module 240 is configured to access the information); and
preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 30-37; Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints)… involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again. Col 14, lines 21-26; if the destination computing device has determined that the data is already stored by the destination computing device, a reply indicates that additional data, e.g., the data segments corresponding to the previously transmitted fingerprints, need not be transferred by the source computing device).
Although, Wartnick teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (See Wartnick: Col 9, lines 2-3; For example, source computing device 140 can send a message with one or more fingerprints and indicate that the fingerprints are, for example, MD5 type fingerprints. Col 9, lines 5-9; In response to receiving such information, destination computing device 150, specifically fingerprint lookup module 154, is configured to determine whether or not a sub-index for the received type of fingerprints already exists, for example in fingerprint lookup table 176. Col 10, lines 62-65; If the message includes information identifying the type of fingerprints included in the message, type identification module 240 is configured to access the information)). Wartnick does not explicitly teach access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device;
Todd teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device (Todd: [0033]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a plurality virtual container indexes 190, including a respective virtual container index for each virtual container associated with entity objects stored in remote object storage system 200. [0036]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a sparse index 140 including entries mapping chunk signatures (e.g., hashes) to virtual container identifiers. [0039]; As such, deduplication system 100 may utilize sparse index 140 and virtual container indexes 190 to make data-locality based decision of what collection of chunk signatures incoming chunks should be compared again. [0041]-[0042]; For example, instructions 129 may determine which of the incoming chunk signatures meet the sparse signature condition associated with the sparse index 140, and then look up in the sparse index 140 each of the incoming chunk signatures…As described above, if instructions 129 do not find an incoming chunk to be a match to a previously encountered chunk (based on signature matching as described above), then instructions 129 may buffer that chunk for upload to the remote object storage system 200 {Examiner interprets this limitation as a form of inline deduplication where the target side compares at the destination without the source (remote) as the destination storage has its own index to compare incoming chunk signature before buffering that chunk to upload to a source later on});
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving in coordinating deduplication among nodes by using a local storage without the need to access a remote location without reprocessing data to improve the efficiency of the system (See Todd: [0061])). In addition, the references (Wartnick and Todd) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick and Todd are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
The modification of Wartnick and Todd teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick and Todd do not explicitly teach a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location;
However, Fraenkel-Saban teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation (Fraenkel-Saban: [0047]; In this context, the host computers 102 may provide a variety of different I/O requests 120 (e.g., block and/or file based write commands, block and/or file based read commands, combinations thereof, etc.) that direct the data storage equipment 104 to store host data 122 within and retrieve host data 122 from storage (e.g., primary storage or main memory, secondary storage, tiered storage, combinations thereof, etc.)), wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location (Fraenkel-Saban: [0061]; Later, once the first node 142 has written the new data to a storage location, the first node 142 updates the deduplication index 250 such that the key maps to the address of the storage location holding the new data (i.e., an actual address which is valid). [0063]; Accordingly, the entries 252 are configured to pair these fingerprints f (or keys) with addresses of storage locations that hold data from which the fingerprints f were generated);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the further teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving in coordinating deduplication among nodes by using an evicted collision to avoid writing dedupe of the other (See Fraenkel-Saban: [0101]). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Wartnick further teaches
in accessing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location, the data deduplication engine is configured to access a data repository storing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 4-32
Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints). Col 4, lines 34-37;
involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again. Col 13, lines 56-60; The migration request also includes, in one embodiment, information identifying the destination computer device, such as destination computing device 150 of FIG. 1, to which the data is to be migrated, such as a drive identifier, network address, folder name, and the like. Col 14, 21-26; if the destination computing device has determined that the data is already stored by the destination computing device, a reply indicates that additional data, e.g., the data segments corresponding to the previously transmitted fingerprints, need not be transferred by the source computing device).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Wartnick further teaches
the data repository is distinct from the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 7, lines 28-29; Destination computing device 150 is configured to store data for clients 120 in a storage device 170. Col 8, lines 32-34; Fingerprint lookup table thus provides a central repository of fingerprints of differing fingerprint types that can be used by various clients to perform deduplication {Examiner correlates the repository different from the destination computing device as the write location is different form the repository storing fingerprints}).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Wartnick further teaches the one or more data identifiers comprise Secure Hash Algorithms (SHAs) (Wartnick: Col 6, lines 44-47; In one embodiment, fingerprint index 166 is configured to support one type of fingerprint, such as fingerprints generated using a SHA (Secure Hash Algorithm) or MD (Message Digest) algorithm).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Fraenkel-Saban further teaches the data deduplication engine is configured to preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location in the absence of accessing data stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 30-37; Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints)… involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again {Examiner correlates that ones that are not already stored would be stored as they are unique while duplicates are not stored}).
Regarding claim 11, Wartnick teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a data processing unit (DPU) from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation (Wartnick: Col 5, lines 9-11; The applications executed by clients 110 are configured to access data 112, for example, by virtue of being configured to read and/or write to data 112. Col 5, lines 20-21; Clients 110 are shown coupled to a source computing device 140 via a network 130. Col 8, lines 37-40; To perform migration between systems employing deduplication, destination computing device 150 is configured to receive one or more fingerprints from a source computing device), wherein the data write operation: accessing, by the DPU, one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 5, lines 20-21; Clients 110 are shown coupled to a source computing device 140 via a network 130. Col 9, lines 2-3; For example, source computing device 140 can send a message with one or more fingerprints and indicate that the fingerprints are, for example, MD5 type fingerprints. Col 9, lines 5-9; In response to receiving such information, destination computing device 150, specifically fingerprint lookup module 154, is configured to determine whether or not a sub-index for the received type of fingerprints already exists, for example in fingerprint lookup table 176. Col 10, lines 62-65; If the message includes information identifying the type of fingerprints included in the message, type identification module 240 is configured to access the information); and
precluding, by the DPU, writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 30-37; Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints)… involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again. Col 14, lines 21-26; if the destination computing device has determined that the data is already stored by the destination computing device, a reply indicates that additional data, e.g., the data segments corresponding to the previously transmitted fingerprints, need not be transferred by the source computing device).
Although, Wartnick teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (See Wartnick: Col 9, lines 2-3; For example, source computing device 140 can send a message with one or more fingerprints and indicate that the fingerprints are, for example, MD5 type fingerprints. Col 9, lines 5-9; In response to receiving such information, destination computing device 150, specifically fingerprint lookup module 154, is configured to determine whether or not a sub-index for the received type of fingerprints already exists, for example in fingerprint lookup table 176. Col 10, lines 62-65; If the message includes information identifying the type of fingerprints included in the message, type identification module 240 is configured to access the information)). Wartnick does not explicitly teach access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device;
Todd teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device (Todd: [0033]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a plurality virtual container indexes 190, including a respective virtual container index for each virtual container associated with entity objects stored in remote object storage system 200. [0036]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a sparse index 140 including entries mapping chunk signatures (e.g., hashes) to virtual container identifiers. [0039]; As such, deduplication system 100 may utilize sparse index 140 and virtual container indexes 190 to make data-locality based decision of what collection of chunk signatures incoming chunks should be compared again. [0041]-[0042]; For example, instructions 129 may determine which of the incoming chunk signatures meet the sparse signature condition associated with the sparse index 140, and then look up in the sparse index 140 each of the incoming chunk signatures…As described above, if instructions 129 do not find an incoming chunk to be a match to a previously encountered chunk (based on signature matching as described above), then instructions 129 may buffer that chunk for upload to the remote object storage system 200 {Examiner interprets this limitation as a form of inline deduplication where the target side compares at the destination without the source (remote) as the destination storage has its own index to compare incoming chunk signature before buffering that chunk to upload to a source later on});
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving in coordinating deduplication among nodes by using a local storage without the need to access a remote location without reprocessing data to improve the efficiency of the system (See Todd: [0061])). In addition, the references (Wartnick and Todd) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick and Todd are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
The modification of Wartnick and Todd teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick and Todd do not explicitly teach a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location;
However, Fraenkel-Saban teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation (Fraenkel-Saban: [0047]; In this context, the host computers 102 may provide a variety of different I/O requests 120 (e.g., block and/or file based write commands, block and/or file based read commands, combinations thereof, etc.) that direct the data storage equipment 104 to store host data 122 within and retrieve host data 122 from storage (e.g., primary storage or main memory, secondary storage, tiered storage, combinations thereof, etc.)), wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location (Fraenkel-Saban: [0061]; Later, once the first node 142 has written the new data to a storage location, the first node 142 updates the deduplication index 250 such that the key maps to the address of the storage location holding the new data (i.e., an actual address which is valid). [0063]; Accordingly, the entries 252 are configured to pair these fingerprints f (or keys) with addresses of storage locations that hold data from which the fingerprints f were generated);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the further teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving in coordinating deduplication among nodes by using an evicted collision to avoid writing dedupe of the other (See Fraenkel-Saban: [0101]). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Wartnick further teaches further comprising accessing a data repository storing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 4-32; Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints). Col 4, lines 34-37; involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again. Col 13, lines 56-60; The migration request also includes, in one embodiment, information identifying the destination computer device, such as destination computing device 150 of FIG. 1, to which the data is to be migrated, such as a drive identifier, network address, folder name, and the like).
Regarding claim 16, Wartnick teaches a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code thereon that (Wartnick: Col 20: lines 65-67; computer software , software applications , computer – read. Col 21: lines 1-4;
able instructions, or computer control logic) on a computer-readable storage medium. Examples of computer-readable storage media include magnetic-storage media (e.g., hard disk drives and floppy disks), optical-storage media (e.g., CD- or DVD-ROMs), electronic-storage media (e.g., solid-state drives and flash media), and the like), in execution with at least one processor, configures the computer program product for: receiving, by a data processing unit (DPU) from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation (Wartnick: Col 5, lines 9-11; The applications executed by clients 110 are configured to access data 112, for example, by virtue of being configured to read and/or write to data 112. Col 5, lines 20-21; Clients 110 are shown coupled to a source computing device 140 via a network 130. Col 8, lines 37-40; To perform migration between systems employing deduplication, destination computing device 150 is configured to receive one or more fingerprints from a source computing device): accessing, by the DPU, one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 5, lines 20-21; Clients 110 are shown coupled to a source computing device 140 via a network 130. Col 9, lines 2-3; For example, source computing device 140 can send a message with one or more fingerprints and indicate that the fingerprints are, for example, MD5 type fingerprints. Col 9, lines 5-9; In response to receiving such information, destination computing device 150, specifically fingerprint lookup module 154, is configured to determine whether or not a sub-index for the received type of fingerprints already exists, for example in fingerprint lookup table 176. Col 10, lines 62-65; If the message includes information identifying the type of fingerprints included in the message, type identification module 240 is configured to access the information); and
precluding, by the DPU, writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 30-37; Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints)… involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again. Col 14, lines 21-26; if the destination computing device has determined that the data is already stored by the destination computing device, a reply indicates that additional data, e.g., the data segments corresponding to the previously transmitted fingerprints, need not be transferred by the source computing device).
Although, Wartnick teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (See Wartnick: Col 9, lines 2-3; For example, source computing device 140 can send a message with one or more fingerprints and indicate that the fingerprints are, for example, MD5 type fingerprints. Col 9, lines 5-9; In response to receiving such information, destination computing device 150, specifically fingerprint lookup module 154, is configured to determine whether or not a sub-index for the received type of fingerprints already exists, for example in fingerprint lookup table 176. Col 10, lines 62-65; If the message includes information identifying the type of fingerprints included in the message, type identification module 240 is configured to access the information)). Wartnick does not explicitly teach access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device;
Todd teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device (Todd: [0033]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a plurality virtual container indexes 190, including a respective virtual container index for each virtual container associated with entity objects stored in remote object storage system 200. [0036]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a sparse index 140 including entries mapping chunk signatures (e.g., hashes) to virtual container identifiers. [0039]; As such, deduplication system 100 may utilize sparse index 140 and virtual container indexes 190 to make data-locality based decision of what collection of chunk signatures incoming chunks should be compared again. [0041]-[0042]; For example, instructions 129 may determine which of the incoming chunk signatures meet the sparse signature condition associated with the sparse index 140, and then look up in the sparse index 140 each of the incoming chunk signatures…As described above, if instructions 129 do not find an incoming chunk to be a match to a previously encountered chunk (based on signature matching as described above), then instructions 129 may buffer that chunk for upload to the remote object storage system 200 {Examiner interprets this limitation as a form of inline deduplication where the target side compares at the destination without the source (remote) as the destination storage has its own index to compare incoming chunk signature before buffering that chunk to upload to a source later on});
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving in coordinating deduplication among nodes by using a local storage without the need to access a remote location without reprocessing data to improve the efficiency of the system (See Todd: [0061])). In addition, the references (Wartnick and Todd) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick and Todd are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
The modification of Wartnick and Todd teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick and Todd do not explicitly teach a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location;
However, Fraenkel-Saban teaches a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation (Fraenkel-Saban: [0047]; In this context, the host computers 102 may provide a variety of different I/O requests 120 (e.g., block and/or file based write commands, block and/or file based read commands, combinations thereof, etc.) that direct the data storage equipment 104 to store host data 122 within and retrieve host data 122 from storage (e.g., primary storage or main memory, secondary storage, tiered storage, combinations thereof, etc.)): is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location (Fraenkel-Saban: [0061]; Later, once the first node 142 has written the new data to a storage location, the first node 142 updates the deduplication index 250 such that the key maps to the address of the storage location holding the new data (i.e., an actual address which is valid). [0063]; Accordingly, the entries 252 are configured to pair these fingerprints f (or keys) with addresses of storage locations that hold data from which the fingerprints f were generated);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the further teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving in coordinating deduplication among nodes by using an evicted collision to avoid writing dedupe of the other (See Fraenkel-Saban: [0101]). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Wartnick further teaches accessing a data repository storing the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Wartnick: Col 4, lines 4-32; Disclosed herein are methods and systems that enable a deduplication engine to recognize and utilize deduplication information (e.g., fingerprints). Col 4, lines 34-37; involve migrating between dissimilar deduplication systems without transferring data from the source system that is already stored by the destination system. Col 10, lines 1-7; For example, deduplication module 152 is configured to access a fingerprint lookup table, such as fingerprint lookup table 176 to determine whether a fingerprint is already stored in fingerprint lookup table 176. If so, a segment that corresponds to the fingerprint (from which the fingerprint was generated) is already stored and need not be stored again. Col 13, lines 56-60; The migration request also includes, in one embodiment, information identifying the destination computer device, such as destination computing device 150 of FIG. 1, to which the data is to be migrated, such as a drive identifier, network address, folder name, and the like.).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Todd further teaches the data deduplication engine is further configured to access the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission from the DPU to the initiating device (Todd: [0033]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a plurality virtual container indexes 190, including a respective virtual container index for each virtual container associated with entity objects stored in remote object storage system 200. [0036]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a sparse index 140 including entries mapping chunk signatures (e.g., hashes) to virtual container identifiers. [0039]; As such, deduplication system 100 may utilize sparse index 140 and virtual container indexes 190 to make data-locality based decision of what collection of chunk signatures incoming chunks should be compared again. [0041]-[0042]; For example, instructions 129 may determine which of the incoming chunk signatures meet the sparse signature condition associated with the sparse index 140, and then look up in the sparse index 140 each of the incoming chunk signatures…As described above, if instructions 129 do not find an incoming chunk to be a match to a previously encountered chunk (based on signature matching as described above), then instructions 129 may buffer that chunk for upload to the remote object storage system 200).
Regarding claim 23, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Todd further teaches the data repository is distinct from the initiating device (Todd: [0017]; In examples described herein, a remote object storage system may not be local to (or locally attached to) the deduplication system, but may instead be accessible to the deduplication via a computer network. [0036]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a sparse index 140 including entries mapping chunk signatures (e.g., hashes) to virtual container identifiers. [0039]; As such, deduplication system 100 may utilize sparse index 140 and virtual container indexes 190 to make data-locality based decision of what collection of chunk signatures incoming chunks should be compared again. [0067]; deduplication system 100 may be hosted on any suitable computer system (e.g., comprising at least one computing device) that is remote from the remote object storage system 200 (e.g., cloud object storage system 200)).
Claims 2, 12, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,792,306 issued to Jeremy Wartnick (hereinafter as "Wartnick") in view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2018/0081561 issued to Todd et al. (hereinafter as “Todd”) in further view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2025/0225112 issued to Fraenkel-Saban et al. (hereinafter as “Fraenkel-Saban”) in further view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2013/0311434 issued to Marc T. Jones (hereinafter as "Jones").
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban does not explicitly teach the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU.
Jones teaches the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU (Jones: [0036]; at least one storage device in storage back-end 240 includes logic to locally calculate a data fingerprint for data to be stored by that storage component to generate a hash value or other fingerprint value which represents corresponding data that a storage front-end implemented within host system 220 has indicated is to be stored by storage component 250 a. The fingerprint value may be provided by data fingerprint generator 255—e.g. for the storage front-end to determine a deduplication operation which may be performed. [0053]; the write command received from the storage front-end via interface 410 may, according to a communication protocol, result in a write response message from the storage back-end to confirm receipt of the message and/or completion of the requested data write).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location) with the further teachings of Jones (teaches the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving the security of the system to avoid duplicates storing (See Jones: [0058]). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban does not explicitly teach the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU.
Jones teaches the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU (Jones: [0036]; at least one storage device in storage back-end 240 includes logic to locally calculate a data fingerprint for data to be stored by that storage component to generate a hash value or other fingerprint value which represents corresponding data that a storage front-end implemented within host system 220 has indicated is to be stored by storage component 250 a. The fingerprint value may be provided by data fingerprint generator 255—e.g. for the storage front-end to determine a deduplication operation which may be performed. [0053]; the write command received from the storage front-end via interface 410 may, according to a communication protocol, result in a write response message from the storage back-end to confirm receipt of the message and/or completion of the requested data write).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location) with the further teachings of Jones (teaches the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving the security of the system to avoid duplicates storing (See Jones: [0058]). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
Regarding claim 17, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban does not explicitly teach the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU.
Jones teaches the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU (Jones: [0036]; at least one storage device in storage back-end 240 includes logic to locally calculate a data fingerprint for data to be stored by that storage component to generate a hash value or other fingerprint value which represents corresponding data that a storage front-end implemented within host system 220 has indicated is to be stored by storage component 250 a. The fingerprint value may be provided by data fingerprint generator 255—e.g. for the storage front-end to determine a deduplication operation which may be performed. [0053]; the write command received from the storage front-end via interface 410 may, according to a communication protocol, result in a write response message from the storage back-end to confirm receipt of the message and/or completion of the requested data write).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location) with the further teachings of Jones (teaches the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location are stored locally by the DPU). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving the security of the system to avoid duplicates storing (See Jones: [0058]). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones are directed to performing deduplications and avoid performing storing multiple copies of the same data to save storage.
Regarding claim 22, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Jones teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Todd further teaches the data deduplication engine is further configured to determine duplicate data entries associated with the data write operation in the absence of a transmission from the DPU to the initiating device (Todd: [0033]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a plurality virtual container indexes 190, including a respective virtual container index for each virtual container associated with entity objects stored in remote object storage system 200. [0036]; In examples described herein, deduplication system 100 may store (in local storage of system 100) a sparse index 140 including entries mapping chunk signatures (e.g., hashes) to virtual container identifiers. [0039]; As such, deduplication system 100 may utilize sparse index 140 and virtual container indexes 190 to make data-locality based decision of what collection of chunk signatures incoming chunks should be compared again. [0041]-[0042]; For example, instructions 129 may determine which of the incoming chunk signatures meet the sparse signature condition associated with the sparse index 140, and then look up in the sparse index 140 each of the incoming chunk signatures…As described above, if instructions 129 do not find an incoming chunk to be a match to a previously encountered chunk (based on signature matching as described above), then instructions 129 may buffer that chunk for upload to the remote object storage system 200).
Claims 6-8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,792,306 issued to Jeremy Wartnick (hereinafter as "Wartnick") in view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2018/0081561 issued to Todd et al. (hereinafter as “Todd”) in view of U.S Patent Application Publication 2025/0225112 issued to Fraenkel-Saban et al. (hereinafter as “Fraenkel-Saban”) in further view of U.S Patent 11,593,332 issued to Shilane et al. (hereinafter as "Shilane").
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban does not explicitly teach the data deduplication engine is further configured to: compare the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and determine one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location.
Shilane teaches the data deduplication engine is further configured to: compare the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Shilane: Col 14, lines 42-54; The deduplication and compression service 312 can use that location information as a key to another index that has the group of fingerprints stored for the part of the object surrounding the fingerprint. If the result from using the selected fingerprint to query the fingerprint index 318 is a key, then the deduplication and compression service 312 uses the key to load fingerprints previously determined to be unique from the local key value store 320, loads these unique fingerprints to an in-memory cache, and compares each of the newly received fingerprints against the unique fingerprints in the cache to identify which newly received fingerprints are missing from the unique fingerprints in the cache); and
determine one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Shilane: Col 14, lines 42-54; The deduplication and compression service 312 can use that location information as a key to another index that has the group of fingerprints stored for the part of the object surrounding the fingerprint. If the result from using the selected fingerprint to query the fingerprint index 318 is a key, then the deduplication and compression service 312 uses the key to load fingerprints previously determined to be unique from the local key value store 320, loads these unique fingerprints to an in-memory cache, and compares each of the newly received fingerprints against the unique fingerprints in the cache to identify which newly received fingerprints are missing from the unique fingerprints in the cache).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location) with the further teachings of Shilane (teaches the data deduplication engine is configured to access the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission to the destination write location). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving the security of the system to avoid duplicates storing (See Shilane: Col 29, lines 2-5). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane are directed to performing deduplications and to communicate between the storage groups to processing storing data accordingly to save space.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Shilane further teaches the data deduplication engine is further configured to: transmit the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device(Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332);
receive data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332); and
cause writing of the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332. Col 14, lines 40-41; The fingerprint index 318 maps from <fp, simgroup>→<location where the segment is stored>. The location where the segment is stored consists of several numbers such as object ID).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, and Shilane further teaches a number of the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation is greater than a number of the absent data identifiers transmitted to the initiating device (Shilane: Col 8, lines 6-8; generates the fingerprints for the received data segments, the back-end service compares these newly received fingerprints against previously generated fingerprints for previously stored data segments that were previously identified as unique. Col 19, lines 61-65; Consequently, subsequently received fingerprints which correspond to those portions of the correctly copied segments will be detected as duplicates of the correctly copied segments' fingerprints, such that resending these data file's segments is not necessary{Examiner correlates the write operations greater than the absent as the system is sending more fingerprints thus duplicates are detected over the unique ones}).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban does not explicitly teach comparing the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; determining one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; transmitting the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device; receiving data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers; and writing the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location.
Shilane teaches comparing the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Shilane: Col 14, lines 42-54; The deduplication and compression service 312 can use that location information as a key to another index that has the group of fingerprints stored for the part of the object surrounding the fingerprint. If the result from using the selected fingerprint to query the fingerprint index 318 is a key, then the deduplication and compression service 312 uses the key to load fingerprints previously determined to be unique from the local key value store 320, loads these unique fingerprints to an in-memory cache, and compares each of the newly received fingerprints against the unique fingerprints in the cache to identify which newly received fingerprints are missing from the unique fingerprints in the cache);
determining one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Shilane: Col 14, lines 42-54; The deduplication and compression service 312 can use that location information as a key to another index that has the group of fingerprints stored for the part of the object surrounding the fingerprint. If the result from using the selected fingerprint to query the fingerprint index 318 is a key, then the deduplication and compression service 312 uses the key to load fingerprints previously determined to be unique from the local key value store 320, loads these unique fingerprints to an in-memory cache, and compares each of the newly received fingerprints against the unique fingerprints in the cache to identify which newly received fingerprints are missing from the unique fingerprints in the cache);
transmitting the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332);
receiving data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332); and
writing the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332. Col 14, lines 40-41; The fingerprint index 318 maps from <fp, simgroup>→<location where the segment is stored>. The location where the segment is stored consists of several numbers such as object ID).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location) with the further teachings of Shilane (teaches the data deduplication engine is configured to access the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission to the destination write location). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving the security of the system to avoid duplicates storing (See Shilane: Col 29, lines 2-5). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane are directed to performing deduplications and to communicate between the storage groups to processing storing data accordingly to save space.
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, however the modification of Wartnick, Todd, and Fraenkel-Saban does not explicitly teach comparing the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; determining one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; transmitting the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device; receiving data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers; and writing the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location.
Shilane teaches comparing the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Shilane: Col 14, lines 42-54; The deduplication and compression service 312 can use that location information as a key to another index that has the group of fingerprints stored for the part of the object surrounding the fingerprint. If the result from using the selected fingerprint to query the fingerprint index 318 is a key, then the deduplication and compression service 312 uses the key to load fingerprints previously determined to be unique from the local key value store 320, loads these unique fingerprints to an in-memory cache, and compares each of the newly received fingerprints against the unique fingerprints in the cache to identify which newly received fingerprints are missing from the unique fingerprints in the cache);
determining one or more data identifiers of the data write operation that are absent from the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location (Shilane: Col 14, lines 42-54; The deduplication and compression service 312 can use that location information as a key to another index that has the group of fingerprints stored for the part of the object surrounding the fingerprint. If the result from using the selected fingerprint to query the fingerprint index 318 is a key, then the deduplication and compression service 312 uses the key to load fingerprints previously determined to be unique from the local key value store 320, loads these unique fingerprints to an in-memory cache, and compares each of the newly received fingerprints against the unique fingerprints in the cache to identify which newly received fingerprints are missing from the unique fingerprints in the cache);
transmitting the one or more absent data identifiers to the initiating device (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332);
receiving data entries associated with the one or more absent data identifiers (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332); and
writing the received data entries of the one or more absent data identifiers to the destination write location (Shilane: Col 10, lines 58-67; identifies the newly received L1 fingerprints which are missing from its previously stored fingerprints at the destination, and returns the missing fingerprints to the source Data Domain Boost client 334. The source Data Domain Boost client 334 receives the missing fingerprints from the destination Data Domain Boost client 332, retrieves the file's L0 data segments that correspond to the missing fingerprints, and communicates the missing L0 data segments to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332 which stores the missing L0 data segments needed to copy the file from the source Data Domain Boost client 334 to the destination Data Domain Boost client 332. Col 14, lines 40-41; The fingerprint index 318 maps from <fp, simgroup>→<location where the segment is stored>. The location where the segment is stored consists of several numbers such as object ID).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wartnick (teaches to include receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location; and preclude writing of duplicate data entries to the destination write location based on a comparison between the one or more data identifiers of the data write operation and the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location) with the teachings of Todd (teaches access one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission between the destination write location and the initiating device) with the teachings of Fraenkel-Saban (teaches receive, from an initiating device, a request for a data write operation, wherein the data write operation: is associated with a destination write location, and comprises one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries for writing to the destination write location) with the further teachings of Shilane (teaches the data deduplication engine is configured to access the one or more data identifiers indicative of data entries stored by the destination write location in the absence of a transmission to the destination write location). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination of dramatically improving the security of the system to avoid duplicates storing (See Shilane: Col 29, lines 2-5). In addition, the references (Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor as Wartnick, Todd, Fraenkel-Saban, and Shilane are directed to performing deduplications and to communicate between the storage groups to processing storing data accordingly to save space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application Publication 2019/0121705 issued to Mayo et al. (hereinafter as “Mayo”) teaches a deduplication system that access item metadata of backup item that is back up to a remote object storage system that includes range information indicating ranging of identifiers.
U.S Patent 11,301,427 issued to McIlroy et al. (hereinafter as “McIlroy”) teaches deduplication that includes inline deduplication of data for a file system to determine whether inline data deduplication is to be performed to remove a data chunk from a write operation to prevent the data chunk from being written to the data store.
U.S Patent 11,016,955 issued to Jeffrey V. Tofano (hereinafter as “Tofano”) teaches deduplication of data across a cluster of computing devices and the index is distributed and managed by respective computing device in the cluster.
U.S Patent Application Publication 2024/0028229 issued to Armangau et al. (hereinafter as “Armangau”) teaches data mobility between storage devices having different block sizes and identifying a baseline size that is common among the storage systems.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N HO whose telephone number is (571)270-0590. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday and Thursday 10:00-6:00.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
3/18/2026
/ANDREW N HO/Examiner
Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169