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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 2, 4 and 7 in the amendment filed on 6/12/2026. Claims 1-7 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/12/2026 with respect to the claims 1-7 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Priority
In the last office action, the acknowledgment was made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN JP2023-139685 on 8/30/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed/submitted a certified copy of the JP2023-139685 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Submission of the certified copy is respectfully required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 2, the claim recites the features:
“the second source data” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this feature in the claim; and
“a second device” in line 3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as whether “a second device” is referred to as the “second source device” or another/new device.
As per claim 7, the claim recites the limitations:
“(ii) store the first data acquired from the first source device in the first storage area; and (iii) store the second data acquired from the second source device in the second storage area”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined features in the claim.
“(i) execute deletion processing in order of oldest first of data stored in a first storage area of a memory of the data deletion control device that is accessible by the processor upon satisfaction of a preset deletion condition…” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as whether underlined feature “a first storage area” is referred to as the “the first storage area” recited in the limitation of “(ii) store the first data acquired from the first source device in the first storage area”; and
“(ii) exclude data stored in a second storage area of the memory of the data deletion control device that is accessible by the processor from the deletion processing” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as whether underlined feature “a second storage area” is referred to as the “the second storage area” recited in the limitation of “(iii) store the second data acquired from the second source device in the second storage area”.
Clarifications or corrections are respectfully required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-6 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action; and an submission of the certified copy the JP2023-139685 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 is respectfully requested.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After further consideration of the prior arts of record and conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity Search, Google Scholar, and ACM Digital Library, it appears that none of prior arts discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1 and 7.
The cited prior art, Patiejunas et al. (US 10,120,579 B1) involves in a data management scheme for optimizing data storage are described herein. A deletion quantity or other metric relating to deletions of data within a first storage zone are tracked. Upon detection that the tracked deletion metric meets certain criteria, the data within the first storage zone are moved to a second storage zone. A verification of the data to be moved is also performed, and if such verification indicates that at least a portion of the data is corrupted, routines repairing and/or restoring at least the corrupted portion are initiated.
Another cited prior art, FOR (JP 2020509467 A) involves in deleting data from a data storage device having a memory, the method including writing a known data pattern to a plurality of known memory locations of the data storage device, and deleting the data from the data storage device. Performing the data deletion procedure, reading the data stored in the known memory location after the completion of the data deletion procedure, comparing the read data with the data of the known data pattern, and reading the read data. Determining a verification result based at least in part on a result of the comparison between the data and the known data pattern.
Another cited prior art, Kobayashi et al. (JP-2016206964-A) involves in a cache memory storage control which controls a first cache memory to store first data to be stored in a plurality of first storage devices; a redundancy determination which determines redundancy of data, on the basis of the configuration of the first storage devices and second devices; a cache function setting which enables cache function using a second cache memory in some storage devices of the first storage devices, on the basis of the redundancy determined by the redundancy determination; a data write which writes the first data to the first storage devices by means of the cache function; and a memory release which deletes the first data stored in the first cache memory when the first data is completely written by the data write.
However, none of the prior arts, singular and any order combination, discloses the claimed limitations: “a first storage area and a second storage area; and an acquisition unit configured to: (i) acquire data from a plurality of source devices, the acquired data including first data acquired from a first source device and second data acquired from a second source device; (ii) store the first data acquired from the first source device in the first storage area; and (iii) store the second data acquired from the second source device in the second storage area; a deletion unit configured to: (i) execute deletion processing in order of oldest first of data stored in the first storage area upon satisfaction of a preset deletion condition such that the first data is deleted upon its satisfaction of the preset deletion condition because the first data is stored in the first storage area; and (ii) exclude data stored in the second storage area from the deletion processing; and an acceptance unit configured to move the second data from the second storage area to the first storage area in response to a user instruction representing user consent to the deletion processing of the second data”, as recited in the independent claim 1.
Conclusion
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 Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571) 270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571) 272-4078. 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.
/BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights