DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 17 March 2026, claims 2, 5-8, 11, 14-17, and 20 are amended per Applicant's request. Claim 1 is cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 2-21 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 2, 11, and 20 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised objection to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 112 rejections of the claims 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 17 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued for claims 8 and 17.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. As Applicant has amended the claims in accordance with the earliest filed application, App. No. 13/273,858 (filed on 14 October 2011), all claims have been afforded the earliest priority date of 14 October 2011.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 with respect to the priority of claims 5-6, 8, 14-15 and 17 as well as the 112 rejections of these claims (see Remarks, p. 7) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The earliest priority date has been afforded to these claims, and the 112 rejections have been accordingly withdrawn in view of the amendments to these claims. However, the amendments to claims 8 and 17 raise new issues; see the 112 rejection below for further details.
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 7-10) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Deshmukh discloses a single fingerprint database structure (see Remarks, p. 8) is incorrect; Deshmukh states that there may be multiple fingerprint databases. See, e.g., Deshmukh, [5:49-67]-[6:1-9], as also cited in the 103 rejection below.
With respect to Myers, Applicant’s arguments rely on attacking the individual references separately when the rejection was based on a combination of references. This has been clarified in the 103 rejection below. In other words, if Myers’ disclosure were to be incorporated into Deshmukh, this would result in a key corresponding to a probabilities of occurrence, with higher keyspace positions having a higher probability of occurrence than lower keyspace positions (which have lower probabilities of occurrence). Deshmukh describes using a key to search, and the occurrence pertaining to deduplication; therefore, the combination of Myers and Deshmukh results in the claimed “range of probabilities associated with a likelihood that the data will be deduplicated” as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach or suggest selective lookup across fingerprint tables (see Remarks, p. 8-9) is unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Deshmukh does not disclose multiple fingerprint tables; however, the use of “tables” as opposed to a “database” is obvious for at least the reason set forth in the 103 rejection below.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that “There is no disclosure of multiple fingerprint tables, much less selectively accessing fewer than all of them” (see Remarks, p. 9) is unpersuasive. However, this is suggested or otherwise rendered obvious; see the 103 rejection below for further detail.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are directed to different problems, and even if combined would not yield the claimed architecture, with Deshmukh addressing duplicate detection using fingerprints and Myers addressing probabilistic storage node selection (see Remarks, p. 9-10) are unpersuasive for at least the reasons already explained above and in the 103 rejection below.
Note that the 103 rejection has been modified below to conform with the newly amended claim language, and thus constitutes a new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,106 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19-20 of the issued patent recite limitations that overlap with claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20-21 of the present claims. The dependent claims are shared (claims 3-9 and 12-18 of the issued patent overlapping with claims 4-10 and 13-19 of the present application).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,976 B2 in view of Deshmukh et al. (US 8,290,972 B1) and Myers et al. (US 2012/0036163 A1). Independent claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected as being obvious in view of Deshmukh et al. and Myers (as seen in the 103 rejection below). The rest of the dependent claims are rejected for sharing the same limitations as claims 1-20 of the issued patent.
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.
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 8 and 17 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.
The claims recite “an order of access to the plurality of fingerprint tables”. However, the closest paragraphs appear to be, e.g., Specification, [0101-0114], which pertain to the ordering of keys within a page; however, this is not an order of access to the plurality of fingerprint tables as claimed.
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 8 and 17 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.
The claims recite “an order of access to the plurality of fingerprint tables”. However, the closest paragraphs appear to be, e.g., Specification, [0101-0114], which pertain to the ordering of keys within a page; however, this is not an order of access to the plurality of fingerprint tables as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by such a limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6-8, 10-11, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshmukh et al. (“Deshmukh”) (US 8,290,972 B1), in view of Myers et al. (“Myers”) (US 2012/0036163 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Deshmukh teaches A storage system comprising:
one or more storage devices; a storage system controller, operatively coupled to the one or more storage devices, configured to (Deshmukh, [3:35-67]-[4:1-13], the disclosed network environment 100 may include a server 120 and disks 130, which collectively comprise a storage area network (SAN), the server 120 providing information stored on the storage devices in response to file access requests and/or block based access requests, the various steps being performed by this server 120 (see also, e.g., Deshmukh, [5:49-67]-[6:1-67]) (the server therefore being a type of “storage system controller” as claimed)):
add an entry for data to be stored in the one or more storage devices to a particular fingerprint [database] of a plurality of fingerprint [databases] … (Deshmukh, [6:1-55], where if a newly received data block is not a duplicate, the new data block may be written to the disk 130, and the deduplication engine may then add a fingerprint record to the fingerprint database 288 of the storage volume corresponding to the received data block. Note that there may be multiple fingerprint databases 288; see Deshmukh, [5:49-67]-[6:1-9]); and
modify one of the plurality of fingerprint [databases] in response to an occurrence of an event (Deshmukh, [6:1-55], where when a new data block is received by the deduplication engine 284 (i.e., “in response to an occurrence of an event”), a fingerprint for the data block may be generated and compared with the fingerprints in the fingerprint database. If the data block is not a duplicate, the new data block may be written to the disk 130, and the deduplication engine may then add a fingerprint record to the fingerprint database 288 of the storage volume corresponding to the received data block (i.e., “modify one of the plurality of fingerprint [databases]”).
See also Deshmukh, [FIG. 9] and [18:19-67]-[19:1-7], where a remove operation results in the deduplication engine 284 identifying a data block range being removed from the storage volume, corresponding to the fingerprints being removed from the probabilistic tree-like data structure. This implies that the probabilistic tree-like data structure (i.e., within the fingerprint database) is being modified, as claimed).
Although Deshmukh does not appear to state that the fingerprint data are stored in “tables” of the databases as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Deshmukh to have explicitly included tables within the database for storing data (such as the fingerprints) with the motivation of improving data organization and search performance.
Deshmukh does not appear to explicitly teach the fingerprint tables are defined according to respective ranges of probabilities associated with a likelihood that the data will be deduplicated within the storage system.
Myers teaches [data storage] defined according to respective ranges of probabilities associated with a likelihood that the data will be deduplicated within the storage system (Myers, [0025] and [0037], where a function is configured so that a plurality of nodes N1, N2, N3, N4 are assigned on the basis of the probability of an occurrence of particular dimensional attributes corresponding to a particular key value, where nodes assigned to keyspace positions corresponding to a relatively higher probability of occurrence are greater than nodes assigned to keyspace positions associated with a relatively lower probability of occurrence. Each storage node N1, N2, N3, and N4 is preferably configured for storing data objects corresponding to keyspace positions (i.e., “according to respective ranges of probabilities”) and the clockwise-next sequentially located storage node position. See Deshmukh above with respect to the “fingerprint [databases]”, i.e., “fingerprint tables”. Thus, the combination of Deshmukh and Myers results in Deshmukh’s fingerprint databases/tables corresponding to the Myers’ storage in which data is stored according to probability of occurrence, and Deshmukh’s occurrence/event relates to “data being deduplicated falls within”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Deshmukh and Myers (hereinafter “Deshmukh as modified”) with the motivation of avoiding disk operation and accelerating the process of identifying duplicate segments.
Regarding claim 6: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 2, wherein the event comprises one of a garbage collection operation, a trimming operation, a secure erase operation, a read request, a write request, reaching a time threshold, or reaching a table size threshold (Deshmukh, [6:1-55], where the event pertains to a write request or a remove request).
Regarding claim 7: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 2, wherein the storage system controller is further configured to:
selectively access fewer than all of the plurality of fingerprint tables during a deduplication lookup operation based on the respective ranges of probabilities associated with likelihood of deduplication (Deshmukh, [10:35-60] and [11:15-34], where a key is first queried against the probabilistic tree-like data structure 500 that stores fingerprints, and the key is queried with all of the Bloom filters on the top level, and then queried with all the Bloom filters on the next level corresponding to a Bloom filter on the top level which reported a match, which is continued down the probabilistic tree-like data structure 500 until reaching the Bloom filters on the last level. Because only those Bloom filters at a level reporting a match are continued to be traversed, this results in “selectively access[ing] fewer than all of the plurality of fingerprint tables during a deduplication lookup operation”, as not all of the fingerprints (which occupy the lowest Bloom filter level) end up being searched. See claim 1 explanation above with respect to Deshmukh and “table”; see also claim 1 with respect to the combination of Deshmukh and Myers disclosing “respective ranges of probabilities associated with likelihood of deduplication”, e.g., Myers’ keys corresponding to probabilities of occurrence, which can be substituted in place of Deshmukh’s “key”).
Although Deshmukh as modified does not appear to explicitly state that the probabilistic tree-like data structure 500 stores information regarding each of the fingerprint databases 288 (Deshmukh, [5:49-67]-[6:1-9]), i.e., “order of access to the plurality of fingerprint tables”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a probabilistic tree-like data structure 500 that encompasses every fingerprint database 288 with the motivation of searching in one location for the information, which may enable greater efficient storage and retrieval operations, e.g., as the system does not have to query each and every location that has a probabilistic tree-like data structure for each of the fingerprint databases 288, but instead consults one location to retrieve information.
Regarding claim 8: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 7, wherein the storage system controller is further configured to determine an order of access to the plurality of fingerprint tables during the deduplication lookup operation based on the respective ranges of probabilities associated with likelihood of deduplication (Deshmukh, [10:35-60] and [11:15-34], where a key is first queried against the probabilistic tree-like data structure 500 that stores fingerprints, and the key is queried with all of the Bloom filters on the top level, and then queried with all the Bloom filters on the next level corresponding to a Bloom filter on the top level which reported a match, which is continued down the probabilistic tree-like data structure 500 until reaching the Bloom filters on the last level. In this manner, the topmost Bloom filters are searched, followed by lower-level Bloom filters with matches, etc., which determines “an order of access”. This is performed as part of the deduplication operation on the storage volumes 130
See claim 1 explanation above with respect to Deshmukh and “table”; see also claim 1 with respect to the combination of Deshmukh and Myers disclosing “respective ranges of probabilities associated with likelihood of deduplication”, e.g., Myers’ keys corresponding to probabilities of occurrence, which can be substituted in place of Deshmukh’s “key”).
Regarding claim 10: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 2, wherein the one or more entries comprise hashes (Deshmukh, [5:59-67]-[6:1-9], where the fingerprint record may include a hash of each data block).
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Deshmukh teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a storage system controller to [implement the disclosed steps] (Deshmukh, [3:35-67]-[4:1-13], where the network environment 100 includes a server 120 that includes a processor 122, non-volatile random access memory (NVRAM) 129, and memory 124 / various computer readable media that stores software program code such as computer executable instructions for execution by the processor 122. Although Deshmukh does not appear to explicitly state that the computer readable media is “non-transitory” as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized a non-transitory computer-readable medium with the motivation of persisting code (e.g., instead of having to redownload / reload the software each and every time)).
Claims 3-5, 9, 12-14, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshmukh et al. (“Deshmukh”) (US 8,290,972 B1), in view of Myers et al. (“Myers”) (US 2012/0036163 A1), in further view of Condict et al. (“Condict”) (US 2011/0099351 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of fingerprint tables comprises a first table comprising a first set of entries corresponding to data stored in the one or more storage devices that have likelihoods … that are greater than or equal to a threshold probability and a second table comprising a second set of entries corresponding to data stored in the one or more storage devices that have likelihoods … that are less than the threshold probability (Myers, [0025] and [0037], where a function is configured so that a plurality of nodes N1, N2, N3, N4 are assigned on the basis of the probability of an occurrence of particular dimensional attributes corresponding to a particular key value, where nodes assigned to keyspace positions corresponding to a relatively higher probability of occurrence are greater than nodes assigned to keyspace positions associated with a relatively lower probability of occurrence. Each storage node N1, N2, N3, and N4 is preferably configured for storing data objects corresponding to keyspace positions (i.e., “likelihoods…that are greater than or equal to a threshold probability”) and the clockwise-next sequentially located storage node position (i.e., “likelihoods…that are less than the threshold probability. See Deshmukh in claim 1 above with respect to the “fingerprint [databases]”, i.e., “fingerprint tables”; the entries corresponding to “data stored in the one or more storage devices” where the occurrence/event relates to “likelihoods”).
Deshmukh as modified does not appear to explicitly state that the likelihoods pertain to deduplication [of the storage devices].
Condict teaches that the likelihood pertains to deduplication [of the storage devices] (Condict, [0017], where when a write request is received at any of the nodes in the cluster, the receiving node computes a new similarity hash for a chunk that includes a segment to be written and compares it to the geometric center of each of the nodes, to determine which of the nodes’ geometric center is “closest” to the containing chunk in terms of its content (i.e., the “geometric center” thus being analogous to a “likelihood”, as both measure some degree of closeness with respect to the data overlapping with other data already stored in a particular storage device). The new or modified data segment is then written to the node whose data is determined to be closest, i.e., the node which has stored data most similar to the write data. See also, e.g., Condict, [0095-0097], where entire chunks of nodes can be moved from one node to another, e.g., by identifying nodes whose geometric center is closest to the new similarity hash for the chunk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Deshmukh as modified and Condict with the motivation of ensuring that two different segments with the same contents do not exist across all the nodes in a storage cluster, e.g., such that no two nodes of the cluster contain a segment with the same contents (Condict, [0067]), thereby achieving deduplication across the entire storage cluster which increases storage efficiency and conserves storage resources.
Regarding claim 4: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 2, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the storage system controller is further configured to: maintain attributes corresponding to usage of data objects storage in the one or more storage devices; and read the attributes corresponding to the objects, responsive to detecting the event.
Condict teaches maintain[ing] attributes corresponding to usage of data objects storage in the one or more storage devices (Condict, [0019] and [0101], where each node maintains a gravitational coefficient that decreases as more chunks are stored on the node, where a possible value for the gravitational coefficient is the percentage of free space left on the node, as well as based on load (e.g., consumption of storage space) (i.e., the gravitational coefficient corresponding to “[an attribute]”)); and
read[ing] the attributes corresponding to the objects, responsive to detecting the event (Condict, [0018] and [0101], where the system may select a node on which to store the node, the system selects the node that has the highest gravitational attraction for the chunk, which can be computed as the gravitational coefficient of the node divided by the chunk’s distance from the geometric center of the node. This implies that the gravitational coefficient was “read”, in order to perform such computations, i.e., “read [an attribute] corresponding to the objects”. See Condict, [0097] above with respect to “detecting the event”).
Although Condict does not appear to explicitly state that multiple attributes are maintained and read, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated additional attributes with the motivation of increasing the likelihood/accuracy of the best node to store a chunk on, e.g., by considering multiple types of information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Deshmukh as modified and Condict (hereinafter “Deshmukh as modified”) with the motivation of quickly ascertaining information relevant to deduplication efforts (e.g., instead of having the system dynamically calculate such information each time, it is faster to have this information available on an as-needed basis), thereby responding to deduplication needs faster.
Regarding claim 5: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 4, wherein the attributes comprise one or more of a number of accesses, an access rate, a data component age, a deduplication rate, a total number of deduplications, an error rate, or a device age (Condict, [0019] and [0101], where each node maintains a gravitational coefficient that decreases as more chunks are stored on the node, where a possible value for the gravitational coefficient is the percentage of free space left on the node, as well as based on load (e.g., consumption of storage space)).
Although Condict does not appear to explicitly state that the type of information relates to “a number of accesses, an access rate, a data component age, a deduplication rate, a total number of deduplications, an error rate, or a device age” as claimed, the claimed invention does not distinguish over the prior art because the differences in the claim limitations and the prior art’s disclosure are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The maintaining and reading of such attributes would have been performed the same regardless of the specific data involved (i.e., the various claimed types of data, or some other data). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ2d 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have referred to Condict’s teachings in making the claimed invention, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 9: Deshmukh as modified teaches The storage system of claim 2, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the storage system is a flash system.
Condict teaches wherein the storage system is a flash system (Condict, [0035], where some or all of the mass storage devices 212 within the storage server system 102 can be flash memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Deshmukh as modified and Condict with the motivation of incorporating the benefits of flash systems, which are faster, more cost-effective for data storage and processing, and have greater reliability.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
8 May 2026
Prosecution Insights