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
This action is in response to Applicant's amendments filed on 24th June 2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended according to Applicant’s amendments. No claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objection-
Applicant’s amendment to the title of the invention to be descriptive has been noted. Accordingly, the objection to the Title has been withdrawn.
35 USC 102 -
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 9 and 10, filed 24th June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Agarwala in view of Yue (US 2021/0064543 A1). It is noted that Applicant’s arguments are directed to limitations newly added via amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the newly amended limitations appear to be missing “a” before “specified duration” for grammar purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwala et al (US 9582421 B1, hereinafter Agarwala) in view of Yue (US 2021/0064543 A1, hereinafter Yue).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, taking claim 11 as exemplary, Agarwala discloses an apparatus for data reducing, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one processor and a memory, the memory stores a computer program, that when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to perform operations (See Agarwala, Fig. 1 and Fig. 9, and Col. 3 lines 59 – Col. 4, line 20 and Col. 13, lines 39-45) comprising: obtaining a first address (See Agarwala Fig. 7, 702 “Object read (data or metadata) Input: logical address); and
updating, based on popularity of the first address, an entry corresponding to the first address in a hot data table (See Agarwala, figure 3A disclosing L0 Cache 302 and Col. 6 lines 45-48 disclosing the L0 cache 302 is a logical index cache that maintains a mapping of logical metadata to a fingerprint of objects stored in L1 cache 304 and Fig. 6, disclosing L0 cache including LRU lists 602 and 604, and Col. 11, lines 41-52, disclosing the DOCL L0 cache is updated to reflect the current logical metadata to fingerprint mapping, and Col 12, lines 1-11, disclosing use of a logical address to search the L0 cache and a cache hit moves the corresponding entry to the head of the L0 list, or in other words, updated based on its popularity and Fig. 7, 704 706, 708, and Col 12, lines 1-11, disclosing use of a logical address to search the L0 cache and a cache hit moves the corresponding entry to the head of the L0 list, or in other words, updated based on its popularity),
wherein popularity of a storage address in the hot data table is greater than popularity of a storage address in a first cache table (See Agarwala, figure 3A, disclosing L0 cache, L1 cache, and L2 cache, Col. 6 lines 45-48 disclosing the L0 cache 302 is a logical index cache that maintains a mapping of logical metadata to a fingerprint of objects stored in L1 cache 304, Col. 10 line 44 – Col 11 line 2, disclosing an L1 cache miss results in an L2 search and if the desired object is found in L2, it is promoted to MFU list in the L1 cache, or in other words, more recently or hotter addresses are found in the higher level caches versus colder and less recently accessed addresses in the lower level caches), and
the first cache table is used for data reduction (See Agarwala, Col 10, lines 5-25 disclosing the L2 cache includes an L2 hash table 506 where the L2 cache is a deduplicated cache, or in other words, reduced amount of data is stored via deduplication, additionally, the L2 cache includes a LRU cache used for eviction, which is another form of “data reduction”).
Agarwala does not disclose wherein the popularity of the first address indicates a quantity of times that the first address is accessed in specified duration.
However, Yue discloses wherein the popularity of the first address indicates a quantity of times that the first address is accessed in specified duration (See Yue, [0017], disclosing “use multiple counters to track access operations across different durations of time. One set of counters can be used to track access operations over an extended duration of time, and another set of counters can track the access operations over a more recent time period, for example, to reflect recency information. For example, the identification scheme can use the set of counters for the recent time duration, additionally or alternatively to using the set of counters for extended time duration, to classify the addresses as hot addresses”).
Agarwala and Yue are analogous art directed to improved memory access management techniques. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the data reduction system of Agarwala with the hot address counter of Yue as memory system performance can be increased by correctly identifying hot and cold data for transfer to level wear throughout the memory device while increasing throughput and reducing latency (See Yue [0019]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, taking claim 12 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 11 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the first address is a storage address of first data (See Agarwala, Fig. 7, 702 “Object read (data or metadata) Input: logical address); and
the updating, based on popularity of the first address, an entry corresponding to the first address in a hot data table comprises: when the first address is a hot address, updating, to a fingerprint of the first data, a fingerprint in the entry corresponding to the first address (See Agarwala, Col. 6, lines 45-48 disclosing the L0 cache is a mutable logical index cache that maintains a mapping of logical metadata to a fingerprint of the objects stored in the L1 cache and Col 12, lines 1-11, disclosing a cache hit in the L0 cache moves the logical address entry of the object to the head of the L0 list resulting in the object not growing stale as quickly nor evicted as quickly).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, taking claim 13 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 12 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the operations comprise: determining that the first address is the hot address when the first address exists in the hot data table (See Agarwala, Col 12, lines 1-11, disclosing a cache hit in the L0 cache moves the logical address entry of the object to the head of the L0 list resulting in the object not growing stale as quickly nor evicted as quickly, or in other words, the address is hot).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, taking claim 14 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 11 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the updating, based on popularity of the first address, an entry corresponding to the first address in a hot data table comprises: when the first address is a hot address, updating an eviction parameter in the entry corresponding to the first address (See Agarwala, Col 12, lines 1-11, disclosing a cache hit in the L0 cache moves the logical address entry of the object to the head of the L0 list resulting in the object not growing stale as quickly nor evicted as quickly) .
Regarding claims 5 and 15, taking claim 15 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 14 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the eviction parameter comprises at least one of the following: a quantity of times that data is written into the first address or a timestamp at which data is written into the first address for the last time (See Agarwala, Col 10 lines 5-24 disclosing the L2 cache includes a LRU list tracking the hotness of segments and a segment that has not been recently added or accessed can be a candidate for eviction from the L2 cache).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, taking claim 16 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 11 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the updating, based on popularity of the first address, an entry corresponding to the first address in a hot data table comprises: when the first address changes to a cold address, reading, into the first cache table, the entry corresponding to the first address (See Agarwala, Col. 6, lines 42-48, disclosing the L0 cache is a mutable logical index cache that maintains a mapping of metadata to fingerprints of objects in the L1 cache, and in combination with Col. 8, lines 29-45 disclosing L1 cache including a MRU/MFU list and stale objects evicted from the L1 cache to the L2 cache and Col. 8 lines 54-56, disclosing older versions of an object will eventually become old and evicted out from cache, or in other words, a cold address in the L1 layers results in eviction to L2, or applicant’s first cache table).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, taking claim 17 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 16 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: when an amount of data of the hot data table reaches a preset amount of data, determining that the first address changes to the cold address (See Agarwala, Col. 12, lines 1-10, disclosing L0 cache having a L0 list of logical addresses and when addresses are old/stale, or in other words cold, a full L0 list of addresses from “hot” to “cold” results in a cold address being evicted).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, taking claim 18 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 16 as above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the reading, into the first cache table, the entry corresponding to the first address comprises: reading, into the first cache table based on an eviction parameter in the entry corresponding to the first address, the entry corresponding to the first address; or
reading, into a second cache table, the entry corresponding to the first address, wherein popularity of a storage address in the second cache table is less than the popularity of the storage address in the hot data table and is greater than the popularity of the storage address in the first cache table; and, when the second cache table meets an eviction condition, reading, into the first cache table, the entry corresponding to the first address (See Agarwala, Col. 8, lines 29-45 disclosing L1 cache including a MRU/MFU list and stale objects evicted from the L1 cache to the L2 cache and Col. 8 lines 54-56, disclosing older versions of an object will eventually become old and evicted out from cache, or in other words, a cold address in the L1 layer, applicant’s second cache table, results in eviction to L2, or applicant’s first cache table).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, taking claim 19 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 11 as described above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the operations comprise: when the first address is a cold address, recording, in the hot data table, the entry corresponding to the first address (See Agarwala, Col. 12, lines 12-15, disclosing no hit in the L0 cache, or in other words, the address is a cold address, and Col. 12 lines 25-30 disclosing an L2 cache hit which results in the object being moved to the head of the MFU list in the L1 cache and Col. 6 lines 45-48 disclosing the L0 cache 302 is a logical index cache that maintains a mapping of logical metadata to a fingerprint of objects stored in L1 cache 304, which therefore results in the entry being in the L0 and L1 cache); and
recording, in the first cache table, the entry corresponding to the first address (See Agarwala, Col. 12, lines 28-30, disclosing moving the object segment to the head of the L2 segment list).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, taking claim 20 as exemplary, Agarwala in view of Yue disclosed the apparatus according to claim 11 as described above. Agarwala further discloses wherein the operations comprise: when a condition for enabling a hot eviction function is met, enabling a hot eviction function to determine whether the first address is a hot address, wherein the condition for enabling the hot eviction function comprises at least one of the following: a proportion of a hot address in a storage address of a persistent storage medium is greater than a preset proportion, or an amount of data of the first cache table is greater than a target amount of data (See Agarwala, Fig. 7 step 726 disclosing promotion of a read object to the head of the MRU list and eviction of content in the MRU list if necessary to create space for the read/requested object, or in other words, hot eviction condition is met when the MRU list is full and Col. 12 lines 38-42 disclosing same).
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 EDMUND H KWONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 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, Arpan P. Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/E.H.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2137
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights