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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 Oct 2025 and 28 Feb 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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 limitation “unit” in “a database obtaining unit”, “an identifier receiving unit”, “an identifier comparison unit”, “a content management unit” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because as written the units are merely “configured” to perform a certain task. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 6 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because “suitable” seems merely subjective. The specification merely repeats the claim language. It is not clear what criteria is used to determine what is considered “suitable.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
An analysis of subject matter eligibility is presented below.
Step 1: claim 13 recites a method in the preamble thus is one of the statutory categories of invention,
Step 2A Prong 1: claim 13 recites "comparing the received unique identifiers with the database” , “identifying whether any of the identifiers match” under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation by a human user, but for the recitation of a generic “content obtaining system”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract idea (concept performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a “content obtaining system” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: claim 13 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely includes the addition elements of "obtaining a database of unique identifiers … receiving unique identifiers…,” or processes of data gathering, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 13 limitation "if there is no match…” and “if there is a match…” “obtaining and storing the corresponding file…” or “generating and storing a reference to a location…” do not amount to significant more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations do not improve any technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, do not add specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, do not add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, do not include other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment because the “content obtaining system” is merely used as tools in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) to implement an abstract idea.
Claim 14 merely recites wherein the unique identifiers are hash values, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15 merely recites wherein the database comprises unique identifiers for a subset of files stored by the content obtaining system, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 16 merely recites wherein the subset represents files associated with one or more particular applications…or a group of files other than those associated with an operating system, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 17-20 recite limitations similar to claims 13-16 in form of non-transitory computer program product thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 13-16 above.
Claims 1-4 recite limitations similar to claims 13-16 in form of system thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 13-16 above.
Claim 5 merely further describes the database, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 merely further describes the files to be obtained, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 merely recites a reference pointer, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 merely further describes a given file has dependent applications, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 merely further describes the content to be obtained, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 merely further describes the identifiers, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 merely recites deleting files, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12 merely recites moving files, considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus although the dependent claims contain more details than their parent claim, the limitations amount to mere insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As discussed above no claim is patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajani (US 202304095) provided by the applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Rajani discloses, teaches or suggests a content obtaining system for obtaining content comprising a plurality of files, the system comprising:
a database obtaining unit configured to obtain a database of unique identifiers corresponding to respective files stored by the content obtaining system (see at least Fig.1 item 100);
an identifier receiving unit configured to receive unique identifiers for one or more of the plurality of files in the content to be obtained (Fig.3A item 300);
an identifier comparison unit configured to compare the received unique identifiers with the database, and to identify whether any of the identifiers match (Fig.6 blocks 606, 608); and
a content management unit configured to: if there is no match for a given identifier, obtain and store the corresponding file for that identifier (Fig.6 blocks 616, 618), and if there is a match for a given identifier, generate and store a reference to a location of the file stored by the content obtaining system for which the match was identified (Fig.6 blocks 610, 612, 614).
Regarding claim 2, Rajani further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the unique identifiers are hash values (Fig.3B item 352).
Regarding claim 3, Rajani further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the database comprises unique identifiers for a subset of files stored by the content obtaining system ([0036]: When File 1 302 is received by the data storage device 100, the control circuitry 120, as part of its deduplication function, can create a signature, such as a hash set for the file. For example, the control circuitry 120 can divide File 1 into several chunks: 303a, 303b, 303c, and 303d. A hash can be generated for each chunk to generate a hash set that represents File 1, as discussed further in FIG. 3B. Assuming File 1 is not a duplicate of an existing file, the control circuitry 120 can save File 1 to the storage media 124 of the data storage device.). Note the claimed subset reads on the chunks of each file in the system of Rajani.
Regarding claim 4, Rajani further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the subset represents files associated with one or more particular applications, one or more particular application types, or a group of files other than those associated with an operating system ([0038]… Various operating systems may handle file pointers in different ways, depending on the implementation of their file system. In one example, modified File 2 may be symbolic link that refers to File 1.).
Regarding claim 5, Rajani further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the database is one of a plurality of databases representing different files stored by the content obtaining system (Fig.3A item 300).
Regarding claim 6, Rajani further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of files in the content to be obtained is associated with a plurality of unique identifiers, each representing a suitable file for use in place of the corresponding file in the content to be obtained, such that a match is identified by the identifier comparison unit if any of the plurality of unique identifiers is present in the database (Fig. 3B item 350).
Regarding claim 7, Rajani further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reference to the location of the file is a pointer which targets the location of the file stored by the content obtaining system for which the match was identified ([0038]: As File 2 is identical to File 1, the control circuitry 120 can save space in the storage media 124 by not saving File 2, at least not in its current form. Instead, the control circuitry 120 can modify File 2 308 to create a pointer to File 1 302. Various operating systems may handle file pointers in different ways, depending on the implementation of their file system. In one example, modified File 2 may be symbolic link that refers to File 1. When a user tries to access modified File 2 308, the user is directed to the contents of File 1 302.).
Regarding claim 9, Rajani further teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the content to be obtained is a video game ([0029]: Various types of host devices can connect to the data storage device 100 described herein. Such host devices can include phones 135, such as smartphones, cable set-top boxes (not shown), smart televisions (TV's) (not shown), video game devices 134, laptop computers 133, tablet computers 132, desktop computers (not shown), wearable computers (not shown) and/or other consumer electronic devices 137).
Claims 13-16 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 1-4 in form of methods thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 1-4 above.
Claims 17-20 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 1-4 in form of non-transitory computer readable storage media thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 1-4 above.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajani (US 202304095) provided by the applicant, further in view of Thorogood, Sam. "Family: Documents, files, nodes and relationships." Information Technologies (2008). 34 pages.
Regarding claim 10, Rajani does not specifically show the system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the unique identifiers are representative of a group of files instead of individual files.
However it is customary in the art to do so as shown by Thorogood (see at least page 18 Node identification), note Thorogood teaches a unique identifier for the folder containing files used by a user. Clearly a folder contains a group of files.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the system of Rajani in order to uniquely tag all files currently in use by a user as taught by Thorogood.
Claim(s) 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajani (US 202304095) provided by the applicant, further in view of Saito et al (WO 2013184677 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rajani does not specifically show. the system of claim 1, wherein the database comprises information about a number of applications which are dependent upon a given file.
However it is customary in the art to do so as shown by Saito (see at least [0019] …one target file may be referenced for multiple times by different clients and is therefore associated with multiple reference files in the file system.);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the system of Rajani in order to document the relationships between a given file and applications it supports.
Regarding claim 11, Rajani does not specifically show: the system of claim 1, wherein the content management unit is configured, in response to an instruction to remove content and/or specific files, to delete files only if it is identified that no other content is dependent upon that file.
However Rajani clearly teaches options may be presented to the user such as whether to prioritize space savings of performance (see [0054].
Furthermore, it is customary in the art as shown by Saito to delete a file only if no other content is depending on it (see at least Saito [0004]: ….. The plurality of program modules include instructions for: receiving a request to delete a reference to a target file in a file system from a file reference data structure, wherein the file reference data structure includes a plurality of target file names and a plurality of reference file names; identifying a reference file name in the file reference data structure, wherein the reference file name includes a file name of the target file in the file system; deleting a reference file from the file system, wherein the reference file has the identified reference file name; checking whether the file system includes at least one reference file whose file name matches the file name of the target file in the file system; if there is no such reference file in the file system: deleting the target file from the file system; and deleting the file name of the target file in the file system from the file reference data structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the system of Rajani in order not to delete files having content referenced by existing applications while prioritizing space savings.
Regarding claim 12, Rajani/Saito does not specifically show the system of claim 11, wherein files which are not deleted due to an identified dependency are moved to a new file location associated with content which is dependent upon that file, and any existing references to the original file location are updated accordingly.
However, Rajani/Saito clearly teaches saving space in storage and determining files with dependencies before deletion (see Rajani [0038]) and Saito [0004]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include moving files with dependencies and updating references to their location as claimed in order to prioritize space while preserving files dependencies and references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gokhale et al (US 20080243879 A1) teach a method and system for reducing storage requirements and speeding up storage operations by reducing the storage of redundant data includes receiving a request that identifies one or more data objects to which to apply a storage operation. For each data object, the storage system determines if the data object contains data that matches another data object to which the storage operation was previously applied. If the data objects do not match, then the storage system performs the storage operation in a usual manner. However, if the data objects do match, then the storage system may avoid performing the storage operation.
Bolosky et al (US 6477544 B1) teach a method and system for storing the data of files having duplicate content, by maintaining a single instance of the data, and providing logically separate links to the single instance. Files of duplicate content have their data stored in a common store file by a single instance store (SIS) facility, which also converts the original file or files to links to that common store file and creates additional links thereto as needed. The SIS facility may reside above a file system as a filter driver. File system requests directed to the link file (e.g., open, write, read, close and delete) reach the SIS filter, which then transparently handles each request as if the link file was a normal file. To preserve logical separation, writes to a SIS link file are to the link file, and the written portion recorded as dirty. The SIS filter intercepts SIS read requests, and reads clean portions from the common store file and any dirty portions from the link file. When the link file is closed, the common store file also may be closed, and, if the link file has been written, the non-dirtied portions of the link file are filled in with clean data from the common store file, and the link file reconverted to a normal file. Security is provided to prevent unauthorized access to the common store files, as is a volume check facility that repairs any inconsistencies in SIS metadata.
Tiku et al (US 20180329940 A1) teach a data deletion system may trigger and orchestrate data deletion of data across various data stores. The system may schedule a record having a unique identifier for deletion in response to a data deletion rule. The record may be deleted from a system of record based on the unique identifier. The system may broadcast a deletion message containing the unique identifier. The deletion message may trigger a purge of data associated with the unique identifier by a subscribing entity such as, for example, an application or third party. The system may monitor the subscribing entity to determine whether the purge was successfully completed.
Wei, Jiansheng, et al. "MAD2: A scalable high-throughput exact deduplication approach for network backup services." 2010 IEEE 26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST). IEEE, 2010.
Abstract- Deduplication has been widely used in disk-based secondary storage systems to improve space efficiency. However, there are two challenges facing scalable high-throughput deduplication storage. The first is the duplicate-lookup disk bottleneck due to the large size of data index that usually exceeds the available RAM space, which limits the deduplication throughput. The second is the storage node island effect resulting from duplicate data among multiple storage nodes that are difficult to eliminate. Existing approaches fail to completely eliminate the duplicates while simultaneously addressing the challenges. This paper proposes MAD2, a scalable high-throughput exact deduplication approach for network backup services. MAD2 eliminates duplicate data both at the file level and at the chunk level by employing four techniques to accelerate the deduplication process and evenly distribute data. First, MAD2 organizes fingerprints into a Hash Bucket Matrix (HBM), whose rows can be used to preserve the data locality in backups. Second, MAD2 uses Bloom Filter Array (BFA) as a quick index to quickly identify non-duplicate incoming data objects or indicate where to find a possible duplicate. Third, Dual Cache is integrated in MAD2 to effectively capture and exploit data locality. Finally, MAD2 employs a DHT-based Load-Balance technique to evenly distribute data objects among multiple storage nodes in their backup sequences to further enhance performance with a well-balanced load. We evaluate our MAD2 approach on the backend storage of B-Cloud, a research-oriented distributed system that provides network backup services. Experimental results show that MAD2 significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art approximate deduplication approaches in terms of deduplication efficiency, supporting a deduplication throughput of at least 100MB/s for each storage component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 13 May 2026
Prosecution Insights