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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “generating, by a hash engine, a respective hash value for each data block in the set of data blocks while excluding bytes identified as data to skip, the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data,” and the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data is not recited by the applicant’s original disclosure. The applicant’s specification [0027] discloses “The hash engine 115 may be configured to execute any hash algorithm, such as MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2,” and [0029] discloses “The compression manager 125 may be configured to execute any compression algorithm, such as gzip/zlib/Deflate L4, eLZS/LZS.” Since the applicant’s specification discloses different algorithms for hashing data and compressing data, the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data is contradictory to what is disclosed within the specification as the hashing algorithm produces the hashed data, and the compression engine produces the compressed data. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 recites “storing the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data,” and this storing the compressed data in association therewith a record such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data is not recited by the applicant’s original disclosure. The applicant’s specification [0066] discloses “the processing logic may provide the skipped data to a record for storage…the processing logic may provide the record of the skipped data via a user interface.” Since the applicant’s specification only provides these two recitations of the record, there is no disclosure of the record being stored in association with the compressed data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicants are reminded to utilize language consistent with the applicant’s original disclosure to avoid the appearance of new matter being added to the claims. Claims 2-10 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “wherein identifying data within the data set to skip comprises applying a first set of skip rules to the data set and thereafter applying a second set of skip rules to remaining non-skipped data,” and this applying a first set of skip rules to the data set is not recited by the applicant’s original disclosure. The applicant’s specification [0037] discloses “the skip capabilities are layers such that one set of skip rules are applied first…,” however, there is no disclosure as to what the first set of rules are applied to first only that there is an application of the first set of rules (e.g., the first set of rules may only be applied to headers and footers, but not the whole data set). Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 17 has corresponding limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same rationale. Applicants are reminded to utilize language consistent with the applicant’s original disclosure to avoid the appearance of new matter being added to the claims.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the record identifying the skipped data includes, for each skipped portion, at least an offset and a length,” and the record identifying the skipped data includes, for each skipped portion, at least an offset and a length is not recited by the applicant’s original disclosure. The applicant’s specification [0066] discloses “the processing logic may provide the skipped data to a record for storage…the processing logic may provide the record of the skipped data via a user interface.” Since the applicant’s specification only provides these two recitations of the record, there is no disclosure of the record identifying the skipped data includes, for each skipped portion, at least an offset and a length. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 19 has corresponding limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected for the same rationale. Applicants are reminded to utilize language consistent with the applicant’s original disclosure to avoid the appearance of new matter being added to the claims.
Claim 11 recites “an interface to receive a data set of bytes,” and this interface to receive a data set of bytes is not recited by the applicant’s original disclosure. The applicant’s specification list several paragraphs related to an interface, but does not provide a recitation that the interface receives a data set of bytes. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 11 recites “store the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data,” and this store the compressed data in association therewith a record such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data is not recited by the applicant’s original disclosure. The applicant’s specification [0066] discloses “the processing logic may provide the skipped data to a record for storage…the processing logic may provide the record of the skipped data via a user interface.” Since the applicant’s specification only provides these two recitations of the record, there is no disclosure of the record being stored in association with the compressed data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicants are reminded to utilize language consistent with the applicant’s original disclosure to avoid the appearance of new matter being added to the claims. Claims 12-20 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
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 1-10 and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites “the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data,” and it is unclear how a hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash can compress at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim how a hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash can compress at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data. For examination purposes, compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data will be seen as a separate limitation from the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash. Claims 2-10 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the respective hash values" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the “s” should be dropped from “values.”
Claims 8 and 18 recite the limitation "the selected bytes" in lines 4 and 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as the claims should state “the selected DIF bytes and/or metadata bytes.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzzaman (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0101117) in view of Lipkey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0288072; hereinafter Lipkey) in view of Kirkpatrick et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0391872; hereinafter Kirkpatrick) and further in view of Bshara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0169613; hereinafter Bshara).
Regarding claim 1, Uzzaman discloses a method, comprising:
identifying a data set to hash, the data set comprising a set of data blocks {¶ [0022] determines subset of data records to hash, the data records comprising subsets of fields (e.g., such as data blocks)};
identifying data within the data set to skip during hash computation by performing at least one of (i) receiving skip information from a data source, or (ii) analyzing the data set to determine one or more skip candidates {¶ [0022] determines and indicates which fields of data to exclude (e.g., such as skip) from hashing based on being a duplicate data field from records of a table};
generating, by a hash engine, a respective hash value for each data block in the set of data blocks while excluding bytes identified as data to skip {¶¶ [0022] calculates a hash for the fields of unique/non-duplicate fields of data and excluding duplicate fields of data}, but fails to disclose excluding bytes and the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data.
Uzzaman also fails to disclose storing the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data.
However, Lipkey discloses generating, by a hash engine, a respective hash value for each data block in the set of data blocks while excluding bytes identified as data to skip, the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash {¶¶ [0012], [0017], [0018], [0032] the system determines which fragments or data blocks (referred to simply as “fragments”) to skip for hashing based on an offset of a first fragment (e.g., such as a first data block) and/or a number (e.g., such as a count) of data fragments; the fragments may be the same size (e.g., contain the same number of bytes), or they may have different sizes; the system identifies respective start and end bytes for each fragment, and skips fragments based on the bytes offsets; [0141] checksum, cyclical redundancy check (CRC), MD5, and SHA-1}, but fails to disclose compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Uzzaman and Lipkey before him/her, to modify the teachings of Uzzaman with the teachings of Lipkey. The motivation for doing so would combine the data hashing techniques of Uzzaman with the data hashing techniques of Lipkey to avoid the computation of hashing an entire data set for an improvement in performance due to the lesser number of hashes to be calculated as disclosed by Lipkey [0032].
The combination of Uzzaman and Lipkey fails to disclose:
compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data, and
storing the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data.
However, Kirkpatrick discloses compressing at least a portion of the data to produce compressed data {¶ [0134] eliminating repeated patterns of data and compressing the non-duplicate patterns of data via compression algorithms}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Uzzaman, Lipkey and Kirkpatrick before him/her, to modify the teachings of Uzzaman with the teachings of Kirkpatrick. The motivation for doing so would combine the duplicate data exclusion of Uzzaman with the deduplication of Kirkpatrick to provide data reduction and compression techniques for optimization of I/O operations directed to storage resources as disclosed by Kirkpatrick [0124].
The combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey and Kirkpatrick fails to disclose, however, Bshara discloses storing the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data {¶¶ [0040]-[0042], [0111]-[0114] data chunks are reduced (e.g., such as compressed) and stored; metadata is stored in an index (e.g., such as a record) along with a flag/pointer that points to (e.g., such as is associable) the reduced data chunks}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara before him/her, to modify the teachings of Uzzaman with the teachings of Bshara. The motivation for doing so would combine the duplicate data exclusion of Uzzaman with the de-deduplication of Bshara to provide data reduction techniques for improved storage utilization as disclosed by Bshara [0001].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data within the data set to skip includes at least one of: data characterized as a pattern, a header, a footer, an index header, non-volatile memory express (NVMe) protection data, a data integrity field (DIF) data integrity field (DIF), or a data integrity extension (DIX) {Uzzaman: ¶ [0022] excluding duplicate data (e.g., such as a pattern); Bshara ¶¶ [0091]-[0102]: skipping fields of data chunks for headers and footers}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara discloses the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the data set to determine one or more skip candidates comprises identifying a skip candidate, providing the skip candidate via an interface, and receiving confirmation indicating whether the skip candidate is to be skipped {Uzzaman: ¶¶ [0022]-[0024]}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying data within the data set to skip comprises applying a first set of skip rules to the data set and thereafter applying a second set of skip rules to remaining non-skipped data {Uzzaman: ¶¶ [0022]-[0024]}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the record identifying the skipped data includes, for each skipped portion, at least an offset and a length {Lipkey: ¶¶ [0012], [0017], [0018], [0032]}, and further comprising providing the record via a user interface {Uzzaman: ¶¶ [0022]-[0024]}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara discloses the method of claim 1, wherein compressing comprises compressing non-skipped bytes of the data set while refraining from compressing bytes identified as data to skip {Kirkpatrick: ¶ [0134]}.
Regarding claim 11, Uzzaman discloses a system, comprising: an interface and processing logic comprising hardware, the processing logic configured to {¶ [0016] system with processing logic, hardware, etc.; ¶¶ [0022]-[0024]}, but fails to disclose to receive a data set of bytes, and including a hash engine and a compression manager:
define a set of data blocks in the data set {¶ [0022] determines subset of data records and defines a subset of fields/columns (e.g., such as data blocks)};
identify data within the data set to skip during hash computation by performing at least one of (i) receiving skip information from a data source, or (ii) analyzing the data set to determine one or more skip candidates {¶ [0022] determines and indicates which fields of data to exclude (e.g., such as skip) from hashing based on being a duplicate data field from records of a table};
generate, by the hash engine, a respective hash value for each data block while excluding bytes identified as data to skip {¶¶ [0022] calculates a hash for the fields of unique/non-duplicate fields of data and excluding duplicate fields of data}, but fails to disclose excluding bytes and the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash.
Uzzaman also fails to disclose:
compress, by the compression manager, at least a portion of the data set to produce compressed data; and
store the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data.
However, Lipkey discloses generate, by the hash engine, a respective hash value for each data block while excluding bytes identified as data to skip, the respective hash value comprising at least one of a checksum, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), or a cryptographic hash {¶¶ [0012], [0017], [0018], [0032] the system determines which fragments or data blocks (referred to simply as “fragments”) to skip for hashing based on an offset of a first fragment (e.g., such as a first data block) and/or a number (e.g., such as a count) of data fragments; the fragments may be the same size (e.g., contain the same number of bytes), or they may have different sizes; the system identifies respective start and end bytes for each fragment, and skips fragments based on the bytes offsets; [0141] checksum, cyclical redundancy check (CRC), MD5, and SHA-1}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Uzzaman and Lipkey before him/her, to modify the teachings of Uzzaman with the teachings of Lipkey. The motivation for doing so would combine the data hashing techniques of Uzzaman with the data hashing techniques of Lipkey to avoid the computation of hashing an entire data set for an improvement in performance due to the lesser number of hashes to be calculated as disclosed by Lipkey [0032].
The combination of Uzzaman and Lipkey fails to disclose:
a system, comprising: an interface to receive a data set of bytes; and processing logic comprising hardware and including a hash engine and a compression manager;
compress, by the compression manager, at least a portion of the data set to produce compressed data; and
store the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data.
However, Kirkpatrick discloses:
a system, comprising: an interface to receive a data set of bytes {¶¶ [0091], [0134] system and interface for receiving data/bytes of data}; and processing logic comprising hardware and including a hash engine and a compression manager {¶¶ [0124], [0134], [0144], [0145] system with processing logic/module, hardware for performing compression and hashing};
compress, by the compression manager, at least a portion of the data set to produce compressed data {¶¶ [0124], [0134], [0144], [0145] eliminating repeated patterns of data and compressing the non-duplicate patterns of data via compression algorithms}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Uzzaman, Lipkey and Kirkpatrick before him/her, to modify the teachings of Uzzaman with the teachings of Kirkpatrick. The motivation for doing so would combine the duplicate data exclusion of Uzzaman with the deduplication of Kirkpatrick to provide data reduction and compression techniques for optimization of I/O operations directed to storage resources as disclosed by Kirkpatrick [0124].
The combination of Uzzaman, Lipkey and Kirkpatrick fails to disclose, however, Bshara discloses store the compressed data and, in association therewith, a record identifying the skipped data such that the skipped data is associable with the compressed data {¶¶ [0040]-[0042], [0111]-[0114] data chunks are reduced (e.g., such as compressed) and stored; metadata is stored in an index (e.g., such as a record) along with a flag/pointer that points to (e.g., such as is associable) the reduced data chunks}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Uzzaman, Lipkey, Kirkpatrick and Bshara before him/her, to modify the teachings of Uzzaman with the teachings of Bshara. The motivation for doing so would combine the duplicate data exclusion of Uzzaman with the de-deduplication of Bshara to provide data reduction techniques for improved storage utilization as disclosed by Bshara [0001].
Claims 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 contain corresponding limitations as claims 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may be applied as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 and 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously amended claims regarding updated 112 rejections and 103 rejections. The preceding rejections and/or objections are newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Additionally, it is noted that the examiner does not present a prior art rejection for claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 18 which would be allowable if the 112 rejections were overcame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights