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
The Amendment filed 29 January, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments Claims have addressed the interpretation concern in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 29 October, 2025. Examiner further acknowledges amendments to the claims which have been rejected upon further search and consideration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0004768), hereinafter referred to as Li, Tian (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0081403), and Yang et al (CN-101226546-A), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
In regard to claim 1, Li teaches an LSM tree-based data storage method, applied to an LSM tree-based data storage system (Fig. 2 storage system; ¶ 0010 LSM storage method), wherein an LSM tree comprises a plurality of storage layers (Fig. 1A; ¶ 0014); at least one first file is stored at a first storage layer in the plurality of storage layers (¶ 0015, lines 1-6 each layer contains files); at least one second file is stored at a second storage layer in the plurality of storage layers (Fig. 5, sort-merge command results in a single level N SSTable file being split into two level N+1 files, e.g. 1+ second files are stored at a second layer); and the method comprises: determining that the first storage layer meets a merge condition for merging with the second storage layer (¶ 0045 sort-merge may be performed if level is full); determining a type of data to be merged from the at least one first file (¶ 0040 and Table 3 shows command structure for sort-merge which includes the Level N (target) file and the CMD ID which in ¶ 0043 may select a type for merging); and merging the data to be merged from the at least one first file into the second file (¶ 0050-0060 disclose the sort-merge operation in detail, wherein target SSTable Files are read into memory using indices (¶ 0050, lines 11-14) and merged according to key-value pairs (¶0054-0056 disclose replacing or merging data in a next-level file based on keys)).
Li does not explicitly teach determining, from the at least one second file, a second file comprising data of the type, wherein types of data in the second file are same; However, Tian utilizes LSM tree-based data storage (¶ 0045) and discloses performing a specified data management process on files of a target data type (¶ 0247) wherein files to be read are searched according to LSM tree logic (¶0204 discloses using an LSM structured index map for accessing data). This would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to process data management operations for specific second-layer file types, achieving the claimed limitation when combined with the sort-merge operation (a form of data management of an LSM tree) and data type targeting of Li. This also means targeted second layer files would contain the same types of data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Tian in order to merge files of a matching data type and incorporate "solutions for improving efficiency and reducing cost of a storage system" (¶ 0004, lines 7-9).
Additionally, Yang teaches a data storage method including merging files of a same type in a tree storage structure (Translation ¶ 0042 file classification; ¶ 0043 files are organized by type; ¶0044 files are merged; ¶ 0045 merged files are organized in a tree by index; Fig. 2 (see page 15 of original document) shows tree structure), which allows one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed limitation when combined with the previously cited references. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Yang to merge file types and “solve the problem of low file location efficiency and improve user experience satisfaction” (¶0031, lines 7-8).
As for claim 2, Tian teaches that data may be of a hot or cold (non-hot) type (¶ 0092, lines 2-6) and the storage system may perform data management based on these types (¶ 0103), achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 8, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Li teaches triggering a sort-merge when a level is full (¶ 0045). Li does not explicitly teach exceeding a specific threshold as a trigger condition, but Tian ¶ 0230 discloses moving data from a first to a second tier upon the size exceeding a threshold. In combination, a sort-merge may be triggered upon exceeding a threshold size, achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 10, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 1, as they share the same rationale. Claim 10 specifies a system comprising a memory and a processor which operates programs to carry out disclosed methods, which is also taught by Li (Fig. 2 system; ¶ 0080 lines 1-4 may be embodied as instructions operable by a system).
As for claim 11, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 2, as they share the same rationale.
As for claim 13, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 4, as they share the same rationale.
As for claim 15, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 6, as they share the same rationale.
As for claim 17, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 8, as they share the same rationale.
As for claim 19, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 1, as they share the same rationale. Claim 19 specifies a tangible computer readable storage medium storing instructions for disclosed methods, which is also taught by Li (¶ 0080).
As for claim 20, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 2, as they share the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Tian, Yang, and Lu et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0060898), hereinafter referred to as Lu
As for claim 3, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Li teaches data of a key value structure (¶ 0013, lines 1-3). The previously cited references do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 3. However, Lu teaches that a key of data comprises a corresponding type in a plurality of types (¶ 0018, lines 1-9). Implementing the key structure of Lu with previously cited disclosures having multiple data types would achieve the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lu in order to link keys to data types and benefit from techniques for enhancing file mapping that reduce the time complexity of file cloning (¶ 0021).
As for claim 12, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 3, as they share the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Tian, Yang, and Alkalay et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0134051), hereinafter referred to as Alkalay.
As for claim 4, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Alkalay teaches a storage method wherein in response to writing a file comprising a plurality of types, dividing the second file to obtain the plurality of second sub-files corresponding to the plurality of types (Fig. 3 deduplication process for splitting obtained files; ¶ 0038 files may have multiple sub-files (e.g. .zip file having .docx, .pptx) and may be split to produce the sub-files). Combining this with the storage layers of Li would achieve the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Alkalay in order to split heterogeneous files effectively and improve deduplication of files (¶ 0034, lines 1-4) which would save storage space.
Claims 5-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Tian, Yang, Alkalay, and Lu.
As for claim 5, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Li discloses performing a merge (e.g. write from first to second layer) according to data type and/or key (¶ 0040 and Table 3 shows command structure for sort-merge which includes the Level N (target) file and the CMD ID which in ¶ 0043 may specify a type).
The previously cited references do not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 5. However, Alkalay teaches that data obtained at (i.e. merged into) a storage device may be divided according to subfiles and their respective types (Fig. 3 deduplication process for splitting obtained files; ¶ 0038 files may have multiple sub-files (e.g. .zip file having .docx, .pptx) and may be split to produce the sub-files). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Alkalay in order to split heterogeneous files effectively and improve deduplication of files (¶ 0034, lines 1-4) which would save storage space.
The previously cited references do not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 5. However, Lu teaches that a key of data comprises a corresponding type in a plurality of types (¶ 0018, lines 1-9), meaning individual files and subfiles may be merged from a higher to lower layer based on data type due to the key matching of Li. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Lu in order to link keys to data types and benefit from techniques for enhancing file mapping that reduce the time complexity of file cloning (¶ 0021).
As for claim 6, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 5. Additionally, Alkalay teaches reading the data that is comprised in the second file and that respectively corresponds to the plurality of types; and generating the plurality of second sub-files corresponding to the plurality of types based on the data respectively corresponding to the plurality of types (¶ 0038, lines 1-11; files may be divided by type according to a file structure including multiple types), and separately writing the plurality of second sub-files into the second storage layer (¶ 0029, lines 12-17 disclose sending chunks (sub-files) to another storage layer, wherein they would separately be written according to the present combination).
As for claim 14, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 5, as they share the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Tian, Yang, Alkalay, Lu, and Tal et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0237029), hereinafter referred to as Tal.
As for claim 7, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 6. Additionally, Tian teaches performing a specified management operation (e.g. merge/migrate) based on files of a target type (¶ 0247-0249 selecting data management operations based on data type) and Li teaches wherein a data amount comprised in each of the at least one file is less than or equal to a first preset threshold (¶ 0015, lines 13-17 disclose that a level N (for ex. Level 0) storage file is a predefined amount of times larger than the next level (e.g. Level 1) and lines 1-6 discloses that level 0 may hold a single file; ¶ 0045 discloses performing a merge when a level is near to becoming or is full (but not exceeding its maximum size, e.g. less than or equal to); choosing any size for the storage layers in the disclosure results in a predefined threshold as claimed, achieving the claimed limitation). The previously cited references do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 7. However, Tal teaches an embodiment wherein the data to be merged from the at least one first file into the second file comprises: reading the data corresponding to the type in at least one first file and the plurality of second sub-files (data would be read according to type when implemented with Li and Tian); and deleting duplicate data from the data, generating at least one corresponding file based on remaining data in the data (known as deduplication in prior art; ¶ 0003 teaches a deduplication system which acts on merged files in separate tree layers, see Fig. 5), and writing the at least one file into the second storage layer (¶ 0003, lines 4-6 this is part of the write process), achieving the claimed limitation when combined with previously cited references utilizing LSM storage and targetable key-value data structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Tal in order to deduplicate stored LSM data and benefit from the disclosed advantages over conventional deduplication techniques (¶ 0105).
As for claim 16, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 7, as they share the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Tian, Yang, and Wu et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0140423), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
As for claim 9, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 9. However, Wu teaches an LSM tree-based data storage system comprising a graph database system (¶ 0070-0072; graph database backed by LSM tree storage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Wu in order to utilize a graph database as known in the art for large-scale data storage and benefit from the improved speed and reduced complexity of the disclosure (¶ 0053).
As for claim 18, Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 9, as they share the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January, 2026 (see page 8 of response) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1 based on reference Li (pages 9-10) were not persuasive. Applicant states that Li does not teach merging files based on a same type, however Li ¶ 0043 as mentioned does disclose targeting an upper-level file to be merged based on type, and references Tian and Yang teach limitations which allow merging files of a same type. Tian discloses identifying target files of a certain type and Yang discloses merging files having a same type, which would allow one of ordinary skill to subsequently target an identified same type for merging. This has been addressed in the modified rejection of claim 1.
The amendments to claim 1 have resulted in the reference Alkalay no longer reading on the claimed limitations due to the altered scope, which has been reflected in the updated rejection of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139