DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations with features highlighted in combination with the other limitations of the claims most overcome the prior art of record:
“A method, comprising:
selecting a first list of key-value pair sets and a second list of key-value pair sets;
providing the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtaining a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
forming a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replacing the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.”
The most relevant prior art does not appear to teach or suggest the highlighted limitations in combination with the other recited limitations. The closest prior art is Wang et al. (US 2022/0156231 A1) and Joshi (US 2017/0277452 A1). Wang et al. teaches merging SSTables, i.e., lists, containing a plurality of key-value pairs. When an SSTable of the first level of an LSM tree is identified and the process determines that at least one other SSTable is found, these tables are merged together. Thus, Wang et al. teaches selecting a first list of key-value pair sets and a second list of key-value pair sets, and providing the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process. When duplicate key-value pairs are identified in Wang et al. the merging entity replaces the duplicate key-value pairs with a newly created key-value pair by including the duplicate key and adding the values together. Thus, while Wang et al. generally teaches replacing a list with a new key-value pair set, the new key-value pair set was not formed from the merge loop process to exclude the first key-value pair and include the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules. Joshi teaches updating old values with new values in a transaction log, that is, a newer key-value pair may be used to replace a key-value pair that is already stored in the buffer. Thus, Joshi generally teaches the idea of forming a new key-value pair set and replace the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set, however, is similarly silent with respect to the remaining limitations as discussed above in accordance with Wang et al. Thus, the prior art, neither individually nor in combination, teaches the entirety of the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-7 depend upon claim 1, and thus, is allowable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
Claims 8 and 18 recites subject matter substantially similar to that as recited in claim 1, and thus, is found to be allowable for the reasons discussed supra. Claims 9-17 and 19-20 depend upon claims 8 and 18, and thus, is allowable for at least the same reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12260097 B2 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application No. 19/027,008
Parent Application No. 18/521,351
(US 12260097 B2)
1. A method, comprising:
selecting a first list of key-value pair sets and a second list of key-value pair sets;
providing the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtaining a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
forming a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replacing the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein key-value pair sets in the first list of key-value pair sets are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets.
8. A method, comprising:
selecting a first list of key-value pair sets;
selecting a second list of key-value pair sets, wherein key-value pair sets in the first list of key-value pair sets are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets;
providing the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtaining a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
forming a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replacing the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12260097 (also known as Parent Application No. 18/521,351). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US Patent App. No. 12260097 B2 anticipate that of the instant application, as outlined in the table below.
Instant Application No. 19/027,008
Parent Application No. 18/521,351
(US 12260097 B2)
1. A method, comprising:
selecting a first list of key-value pair sets and a second list of key-value pair sets;
providing the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtaining a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
forming a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replacing the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
8. A method, comprising:
selecting a first list of key-value pair sets;
selecting a second list of key-value pair sets, wherein key-value pair sets in the first list of key-value pair sets are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets;
providing the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtaining a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
forming a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replacing the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the new key-value pair set excludes the first key-value pair in accordance with the set of rules based on the first key-value pair being included in the first list of key-value pair sets.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the new key-value pair set excludes the first key-value pair in accordance with the set of rules based on the first key-value pair being included in the first list of key-value pair sets.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the new key-value pair set includes the second key-value pair in accordance with the set of rules based on the second key-value pair being included in the second list of key-value pair sets.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the new key-value pair set includes the second key-value pair in accordance with the set of rules based on the second key-value pair being included in the second list of key-value pair sets.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first key-value pair is associated with a duplicate key and is able to be discarded when forming the new key-value pair set; and the second key-value pair is kept when forming the new key-value pair set.
12. The method of claim 8, wherein: the first key-value pair is associated with a duplicate key and is able to be discarded when forming the new key-value pair set; and the second key-value pair is kept when forming the new key-value pair set.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first list of key-value pair sets includes sparse key-value pair sets that are ordered by age, and wherein the sparse key-value pair sets include key-value pair sets that are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets.
14. The method of claim 8, wherein the first list of key-value pair sets includes sparse key-value pair sets that are ordered by age, and wherein the sparse key-value pair sets include key-value pair sets that are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: regenerating an index of sorted keys for the first list of key-value pair sets based on the second list of key-value pair sets being replaced with the new key-value pair set.
15. The method of claim 8, further comprising: regenerating an index of sorted keys for the first list of key-value pair sets based on the second list of key-value pair sets being replaced with the new key-value pair set.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the new key-value pair set inherits value data from the first list of key-value pair sets and creates new value data for the second list of key-value pair sets.
16. The method of claim 8, wherein the new key-value pair set inherits value data from the first list of key-value pair sets and creates new value data for the second list of key-value pair sets.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a first amount of key-value data from the second list of key-value pair sets that is used to form the new key-value pair set;
determining a second amount of key data from the first list of key-value pair sets that is used to form the new key-value pair set; and
determining a third amount of duplicate key-value data from the second list of key-value pair sets,
wherein the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets are selected based on the first amount, the second amount, and the third amount.
17. The method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining a first amount of key-value data from the second list of key-value pair sets that is used to form the new key-value pair set;
determining a second amount of key data from the first list of key-value pair sets that is used to form the new-key value pair set; and
determining a third amount of duplicate key-value data from the second list of key-value pair sets,
wherein the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets are selected based on the first amount, the second amount, and the third amount.
12. A memory device, comprising:
one or more components configured to:
select a first list of key-value pair sets and a second list of key-value pair sets;
provide the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key- value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtain a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
form a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replace the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
1. A memory device, comprising:
one or more components configured to:
identify a list of key-value pair sets ordered by age;
select a key-value pair set from the list of key-value pair sets, wherein the key-value pair set includes a plurality of key-value pairs, and wherein the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets is an oldest key-value pair set in relation to other key-value pair sets in the list of key-value pair sets;
identify, from the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets, a first key that is included in at least one other key-value pair set from the list of key-value pair sets, wherein the first key is associated with a first value;
identify, from the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets, a second key that is not included in at least one other key-value pair set from the list of key-value pair sets, wherein the second key is associated with a second value;
form a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key and the first value and includes the second key and the second value based on the first key being included in at least one other key-value pair set and the second key not being included in at least one other key-value pair set; and
replace the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
14. The memory device of claim 12, wherein key-value pair sets in the first list of key-value pair sets are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets.
3. The memory device of claim 1, wherein the second key in the key-value pair set that is not included in at least one other key-value pair set is kept when forming the new key-value pair set.
18. The memory device of claim 12, wherein: the first key-value pair is associated with a duplicate key and is able to be discarded when forming the new key-value pair set; and the second key-value pair is kept when forming the new key-value pair set.
2. The memory device of claim 1, wherein the first key in the key-value pair set that is included in at least one other key-value pair set is a duplicate key that is able to be discarded when forming the new key-value pair set.
19. The memory device of claim 12, wherein the first list of key-value pair sets includes sparse key-value pair sets that are ordered by age, and wherein the sparse key- value pair sets include key-value pair sets that are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets.
14. The method of claim 8, wherein the first list of key-value pair sets includes sparse key-value pair sets that are ordered by age, and wherein the sparse key-value pair sets include key-value pair sets that are newer than key-value pair sets in the second list of key-value pair sets.
20. A system, comprising:
memory; and
a controller configured to:
select a first list of key-value pair sets and a second list of key-value pair sets;
provide the first list of key-value pair sets and the second list of key-value pair sets to a merge loop process;
obtain a first key-value pair and a second key-value pair from the merge loop process;
form a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key-value pair and includes the second key-value pair in accordance with a set of rules; and
replace the second list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
18. A system, comprising:
memory; and
a controller configured to:
identify a list of key-value pair sets;
determine, from the list of key-value pair sets, a key-value pair set, wherein the key-value pair set is an oldest key-value pair set in relation to other key-value pair sets in the list of key-value pair sets;
identify, from the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets, a first key that is included in at least one other key-value pair set from the list of key-value pair sets;
identify, from the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets, a second key that is not included in at least one other key-value pair set from the list of key-value pair sets;
form a new key-value pair set that excludes the first key and includes the second key; and
replace the key-value pair set selected from the list of key-value pair sets with the new key-value pair set.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomlinson et al. (US 2020/0117728 A1) teaches merging key-value sets within a given node by rewriting key blocks of the key-value sets of a log-structured merge tree.
Lee et al. (US 2021/0004177 A1) teaches separating a key from each of the key-value pairs to create and separately store a merged key stream.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE W BENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs (8 AM - 5 PM).
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.
JANE W. BENNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2131
/JANE W BENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights