CTNF 19/069,237 CTNF 96555 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to application filed on March 04, 2025. Claims 1, 9 and 19 are independent claims. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements dated March 15, 2025 and October 27, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 17: “the at least one duplicate file” it is unclear whether the at least one duplicate file refers back to “the at least candidate duplicate file” of claim 16 or to the “plurality of duplicate files” of claim 9 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “attempting to modify a value of the indication field of the first file to a third value at a first moment”, this limitation is unclear. Claim 1 preamble establishes that the indication field has an initial value which is a first value and is modified to a second value when the first file is modified. It is unclear whether the value being modified to the third value is the first value, the second value or some other current state of the field at the first moment, also the relationship of the recited “third value” to the first and second values is unclear beyond the statement that it is “different from” each. The claim does not specify the field’s state at the first moment, and does not define what the third value signifies or how it is distinguished in operation, particularly that in view of the specification [0219, 0255], it admits that the second value may be equal to the first value. One of ordinary skills in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty, the operand or the result of the “attempting to modify” step, thus the scope is indefinite. Dependent claims 3, 12 and 16 which recite modifying/attempting to modify “to the third value”, inherit this indefiniteness. Claims 4-5 each are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) as indefinite because the alternative conditions yield conflicting results given the value relationships the claims inherit from claim 1. Claim 1 recites three values a first (initial) value, a second value and a third value, where the indication field is set to a second value when the file is modified. Claims 4 and 5 then decide whether a file was modified by checking the value at the second moment against two conditions joined by “or”. But the claims never say what it means if the value is still the first value. Because there are three possible values and the claims only account for two of them in each “or” condition, the two conditions become unclear when the value is the first value: Claim 4 decide the file is modified by: -Condition 1: the value “is the second value” = is modified. -Condition 2: the value “is not the third value” = modified. The conflict occurs in condition 2, where if the value is the first value, which is not the third value and is not the second value. This, renders the claim unclear. Does the limitation requires to treat the first value as “modified”? Or does this second condition is a duplicated that also refers to the second value? One of ordinary skills in the art cannot determine, for a field at the first (initial) value, whether the file is modified or not modified, the scope is indefinite. Claim 5 decide the file is not modified by: -Condition 1: the value “is the third value” = is not modified. -Condition 2: the value “is not the second value” = is not modified. The conflict occurs in condition 2, where if the value is the first value, which is not the second value and not the third value. This, renders the claim unclear. Does the limitation requires to treat the first value as “not modified”? Or does this second condition is a duplicated condition that also refers to the third value? One of ordinary skills in the art cannot determine, for a field at the first (initial) value, whether the file is modified or not modified, the scope is indefinite. Independent claims 9 and 19 recite obtaining the indication field of each duplicate file “at a third moment”, but neither claims 9 nor 19 recite any “first moment” or “second moment”. The “third moment” implies two antecedent moments for which there are no antecedent basis in the independent claims, so it is unclear relative to what the “third moment” is third, and what temporal relationship (if any) it bears to the determination. The defect further reflects in the dependent claims 10, 12, 16-18 and 20, where the “moments” are introduced out of order and used inconsistently across distinct files: Claims 10 and 20 which depend directly from claims 9 and 19 and likewise recite only “the third moment”, inherit this defect. Claim 12 (depending from claim 9) first recites “a first moment” after claim 9 has already recited “a third moment”, and claim 16 (depending from claim 12) first recites “a second moment” – thus it does not cure and further confuses the independent claims’ antecedent basis. It is unclear how claims 9 and 19 “third moment” relates to the later-introduced first and second moments. The scope is further unclear in claims 17 and 18, where claim 17 recites “at the second moment, learning that a value… of a target duplicate file… is the third value”, and claim 18 recites, for a different file (the “third file”), “at the second moment, learning that a value… is not the third vale.” It is unclear whether “the second moment” is a single instant for all duplicate files or a separate moment determined predetermined per file, because each file’s modified / not modified determination depends on the interval ending , “at the second moment”, the temporal scope of the determination across distinct files is not reasonably certain. Examiner notes Examiner notes that the following BRI applies for all claims 1-20. Based on the Specification paragraphs [0193-0194, 0007, 0213, 0219], where the first value (V0) is the initial value the file system set, the third value (V1) is the value the application writes at the first moment and the second value (V2) is a modification-driven value the file system writes when the file is modified, which only differ from V1 and may be equal to V0, the term “third value” is interpreted as a value of the indication field that indicates the file is not modified, and any value other that the third value indicates the file is modified. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20120330904 A1), in view of Brown (US Patent Publication No. US6101585A) . Examiner notes based on the Specification paragraphs [0193-0194, 0007, 0213, 0219], where the first value (V0) is the initial value the file system set, the third value (V1) is the value the application writes at the first moment and the second value (V2) is a modification-driven value the file system writes when the file is modified, which only differ from V1 and may be equal to V0, the “third value” is interpreted as a value if the indication field that indicates the file is not modified, and any value other that the third value indicates the file is modified. Regarding claim 1, Factor teaches a file processing method, applied to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device stores an indication field of a first file, an initial value of the indication field is a first value, and the electronic device is configured to modify the indication field to a second value when the first file is modified; and (See Factor [0017, 0031-0032] “ a file A in a file system may be identified by way of a filename (e.g., filename A) which points to a data file (herein also referred to as an “inode”)… if a file in the file system is modified before a duplicate is identified for that file, the corresponding directory entry points to data blocks 250 having content that is inconsistent with the entry name… In order to correct such inconsistent directory state, the inode with the updated content is tagged [e.g. modify the indication field to a second value when the first file is modified] by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value [e.g. an indication field of a first file], for example… Once corrected, the tags are removed and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.” Thus, the state that field holds when the file has not been modified is the initial value.) the method comprises: attempting to modify a value of the indication field of the first file to a third value at a first moment, wherein the third value is different from the first value, and the third value is different from the second value; (See Factor [0031-0032] “the inode with the updated content is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value, for example… inodes that are tagged [e.g. second value] as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected [e.g. at a first moment], the tags are removed [i.e. untagged state/ indicator value occurring at a different moment (e.g. third value)] and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.”) Factor discloses tagging by setting an indicator value characterized by a flag. To the extent the indicator field is argued to require holding values distinct to a binary flag, Brown teaches a per-file modification indicator holding an initial value and a distinct modification value. (See Brown claim 1 ”creating a snapshot file in a read-only container, and duplicating contents of the on-line file to the snapshot file, each file [e.g. first file] initially having an archive bit change number (ABCN) attribute [e.g. indication field] of the same value [e.g. a value, first value]; modifying the on-line file [e.g. when the first file is modified] to reflect changes by a user; asserting the archive bit and incrementing the ABCN [e.g. second value] of the on-line file in response to the step of modifying… issuing [Thus, modify a value] a clear archive bit command [e.g. third value] upon completion of an incremental backup operation [e.g. first moment] directed to the snapshot file [Thus, attempting to modify a value of the indication field of the first file to a third value at a first moment, wherein the third value is different from the first value, and the third value is different from the second value]”) Both Factor and Brown maintain per-file modification indicator in file-system metadata that the system updates on modification. Factor detects modification via per-file flag and resets it only after correction. Brown’s teaches the use of archive bit change number to flag incremental file modifications to define a reference point which later changes are measured and clearing the flag after backup. Therefore, a person having ordinary skills in the art would have found it obvious to substitute or supplement Factor’s flag/indicator value with Brown’s archive bit change number attribute, as both represent known and interchangeable techniques for file modification check, yielding predictable results and improving system flexibility. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites conditional limitations, [1b] “when the value of the indication field of the first file is successfully modified… obtaining a value” and [1c] “determining… whether the first file is modified in a time period from the first moment to the second moment” Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), in a method claim a step is performed only upon satisfaction of a condition precedent need not to be taught by the prior art, because the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses the alternative in which the condition is not satisfied, and neither step [1b] not [1c] is performed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 does not depend on the prior art teaching [1b] or [1c]. For the purpose of compact prosecution only, however, the Examiner has further shown below that limitations [1b] and [1c] are each taught by the cited reference(s), so that claim is addressed on the merits regardless of how the conditional language is ultimately construed. Factor further in view of Brown, [hereinafter Factor-Brown] when the value of the indication field of the first file is successfully modified to the third value, obtaining a value of the indication field at a second moment; and determining, based on the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment, whether the first file is modified in a time period from the first moment to the second moment. (See Factor [0024, 0032] “ background process that, for example, scans directory 210 for entries that are marked as ‘modified’… a background process may be executed [e.g. at a second moment] to find [Thus, determining] updated files [e.g. first file] according to the tagged status [e.g. the value of the indication field of the first file] of the respective inodes. [Thus, whether the first file is modified in a time period from the first moment to the second moment]… inodes that are tagged as updated [e.g. successfully modified] not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected, the tags are removed [Thus, when the value of the indication field of the first file is successfully modified to the third value] and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.”) Regarding claim 2, Factor-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the indication field is stored in a metadata area of the electronic device. (See Factor [0018] “The metadata may be stored in an inode [e.g. metadata area] that is identified by an integer number (e.g., i-number).”) Regarding claim 3, Factor-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the attempting to modify the value of the indication field of the first file to the third value comprises: when a first condition is met, modifying the value of the indication field to the third value, wherein in the first condition, a file system of the electronic device is able to detect a modification operation that is performed on the first file in the time period from the first moment to the second moment. (See Factor [0031-0032] “inodes that are tagged as updated [e.g. detect a modification operation that is performed on the first file in the time period from the first moment to the second moment] are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected [Thus, when a first condition is met], the tags are removed [e.g. modifying the value of the indication field to the third value] and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.” Examiner notes that Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), in a method claim “when a first condition is met, modifying” is a condition precedent, the modifying step carries no weight in the method claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the alternative in which the condition is not met and the modifying step is not performed. For the purpose of compact prosecution only, however, the Examiner has further shown that the limitation is taught by the cited reference(s).) Regarding claim 4, Factor-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein after the first moment, the method further comprises: detecting that the first file is modified, and modifying the value of the indication field of the first file to the second value; and (See Factor [0031-0032] “the inode with the updated content [e.g. detecting that the first file is modified] is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value [e.g. modifying the value of the indication field of the first file to the second value], for example… a background process may be executed to find updated files according to the tagged status of the respective inodes.”) the determining, based on the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment, whether the first file is modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment comprises: when the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment is the second value, determining that the first file is modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment, or when the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment is not the third value, determining that the first file is modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment. (See Factor [0032] “a background process may be executed [e.g. at a second moment] to find updated files according to the tagged status of the respective inodes… inodes that are tagged [e.g. second value, and not the third value] as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. [Thus, reading the indicator at the later time and finding it in the tagged/updated state (e.g. the second value) is a determination that the file was modified in the interim]”) Regarding claim 5, Factor-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment, whether the first file is modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment comprises: when the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment is the third value, determining that the first file is not modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment, or when the value of the indication field of the first file at the second moment is not the second value, determining that the first file is not modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment. (See Factor [0032] ““a background process may be executed [e.g. at a second moment] to find updated files according to the tagged status of the respective inodes… the inode with the updated content [e.g. detecting that the first file is modified] is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value [e.g. modifying the value of the indication field of the first file to the second value], for example… Once corrected the tags are removed [e.g. third value and not the second value (Thus, treating the file as not updated)] and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor-Brown, in view of Tsirkin (US Patent Publication No. US9990237B2) . Regarding claim 6, Factor-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 3. Factor-Brown does not explicitly disclose memory-mapped files. However, Tsirkin teaches the first file is mapped to a memory before the first moment, but the electronic device does not perform a write operation on the memory. (See Tsirkin abstract, claim 1 “The computer system then clears the file, and protects the pages in the memory from write access after clearing of the file… marking… in a page table… each memory page as having a write-protected status [Thus, the first file is mapped to a memory]; receiving a write request to write to a first memory page …; removing [Thus, removed upon write request (does not perform a write operation on the memory), thus a page for which no write request has been received remains in its initial write-protected status]… the write-protected status from the first memory page; recording a pointer to the first memory page in a first logfile… sending the first logfile to the requester to identify… memory pages that have been modified since a previous logfile request [Thus, the first file is mapped to a memory before a requested write (e.g. before the first moment), but the electronic device does not perform a write operation on the memory]” Examiner notes that Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), as in method claim 3 “when a first condition is met, modifying” is a condition precedent; the modifying step has no weight in the method claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the alternative in which the condition is not met and the modifying step is not performed.) Factor-Brown depends on the file system reliably flagging on modification. Tsirkin teaches detecting modification by page write-protection state, so that a target relied upon is one in the clean/write protected (mapped-but-unwritten) state. Therefore, a person having ordinary skills in the art would apply Tsirkin technique of write-protecting a clean memory which guarantees that the next write is caught, to make Factor’s per-file modification flag reliable for memory-mapped files, yielding predictable results using a known mechanism . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor-Brown, in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20140365451 A1) . Regarding claim 7, Factor-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining duplicate files in the electronic device through scanning, wherein the duplicate files comprise the first file and a second file, the first file is stored in a first storage space, and the second file is stored in a second storage space; (See Factor [0008, 0021, 0027] “When a second content that is a duplicate of the first content is to be stored, then a parent inode is created to point to the data blocks in which a copy of the first content is stored… a directory 210 (e.g., an indexing data structure) that is used to maintain and manage the location of storage of each file [Thus, the first file is stored in a first storage space, and the second file is stored in a second storage space] by providing an association between the filename and the inode for the respective file in the storage system… Referring to FIGS. 5 and 6, if it is determined that a duplicate copy of the file content… already exists in the file system (e.g., by comparing the hash value of the new content with the hash value of content for other filenames already in the directory 210) [Thus, obtaining duplicate files in the electronic device through scanning] … a clone construct… may be… applied to the file with the duplicate content already stored in the file system”) determining that the first file and the second file are not modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment; and (See Factor [0031-0032] “inodes that are tagged as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected, the tags are removed [e.g. determining that the first file and the second file are not modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment] and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.”) Factor-Brown does not explicitly disclose displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises information about the first and second files. However, Chen teaches displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises information about the first file and information about the second file. (See Chen [0008, 0021, 0028] “scanning, by a device client, a file system on a local device to generate a list of file information [e.g. information about the first file and information about the second file]… the device may display the comparison result which is a list of file information with marks and tag information… The device comprises a… data displaying module… configured to provide the user with a display interface and to display comparison result information [Thus, displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises information about the first file and information about the second file].”) It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skills in the art to supplement Factor’s user interface (Factor 0046) with Chen file-list display interface used for file cleanup. One would have been motivated to do so to let user identify, at a glance, which files are redundant duplicates and make informed decision for duplicate-file cleanup. Regarding claim 8, Factor-Brown further in view of Chen teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 7, wherein a first operation entered by a user on the first interface is detected, and the method further comprises: compressing the first file and the second file to a same storage space. (See Chen [0091] “The cleanup operations selected by the user may be: delete, compress-and-store [e.g. compressing the first file and the second file to a same storage space], or move to the recycle bin, etc. The mobile terminal client will perform corresponding operations on the files according to the selection made by the user” See also Factor abstract “Both inodes point to the same parent inode that points to the data blocks where the first content is stored”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9-11 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20120330904 A1), in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20140365451 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Factor teaches a file processing method, applied to an electronic device, wherein the method comprises: displaying a second interface, wherein the second interface comprises a plurality of duplicate files that are in the electronic device and that are obtained through scanning, and the plurality of duplicate files are respectively stored in a plurality of storage spaces of the electronic device; (See Factor [0005, 0021, 0027] “the data block signatures for the file content are compared [e.g. scanning] with signatures in a hash table… If there is a match, then instead of having duplicate copies of the same content, a corresponding reference is created to the matching content already stored in the file system… Referring to FIG. 3, the tracking of files [e.g. scanning] in the file system may be accomplished by way of a directory 210 (e.g., an indexing data structure) that is used to maintain and manage the location of storage of each file by providing an association between the filename and the inode for the respective file in the storage system [e.g. respectively stored in a plurality of storage spaces]… Referring to FIGS. 5 and 6, if it is determined that a duplicate copy of the file content… already exists in the file system (e.g., by comparing the hash value of the new content with the hash value of content for other filenames already in the directory 210) [Thus, obtaining duplicate files in the electronic device through scanning] … a clone construct… may be… applied to the file with the duplicate content already stored in the file system” See also Factor [0044-0046] “ Referring to FIG. 7B, software environment 1120… the methods and processes disclosed here may be implemented as system software 1121, application software 1122, or a combination thereof… software environment 1120 may comprise a user interface 1124 (e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) [Thus, displaying user interface (e.g. a second user interface)]for receiving user commands and data” Thus, Factor obtains duplicate files by scanning and identifies them and separately stored copies (each location of storage), and provides a GUI 1124 to run its methods. Factor does not explicitly teach displaying the identified duplicate files on the interface. However, Chen teaches displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises information about the first file and information about the second file. (See Chen [0008, 0021, 0028] “scanning, by a device client, a file system on a local device to generate a list of file information [i.e. plurality of files (e.g. duplicate files)]… the device may display the comparison result which is a list of file information with marks and tag information… The device comprises a… data displaying module… configured to provide the user with a display interface and to display comparison result information [Thus, displaying a second interface, wherein the second interface comprises a plurality of files (e.g. duplicate files)].”) Factor already identifies the duplicate files but only operates them internally. Chen teaches displaying scanned files information on the device’s interface so the user can see it. It would have been obvious to display Factor’s identified duplicate files on an interface as Chen teaches, one would have been motivated to do so to allow the user to see and identify, at a glance, which files are redundant duplicates and make informed decision for the duplicate-file list, yielding predictable results. Factor further in view of Chen, [hereinafter Factor-Chen] additionally disclose in response to an operation entered by a user on the second interface, obtaining an indication field of each of the plurality of duplicate files at a third moment, wherein a value of the indication field of each duplicate file indicates whether the duplicate file is modified; and (See Factor [0024, 0031-0032] “a background process that, for example, scans [e.g. at a third moment] directory 210 for entries that are marked [e.g. indication field] as ‘modified’… if a file in the file system is modified before a duplicate is identified for that file, the corresponding directory entry points to data blocks 250 having content that is inconsistent with the entry name… the inode with the updated content [e.g. modified] is tagged [e.g. indication field to a second value when the first file is modified] by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value [Thus, a value of the indication field of each duplicate file indicates whether the duplicate file is modified]… a background process may be executed to find updated files according to the tagged status [Thus, obtaining an indication field of each of the plurality of duplicate files at a third moment] of the respective inodes.” See also Factor [0044-0046] “Referring to FIG. 7B, software environment 1120… the methods and processes disclosed here may be implemented as system software 1121, application software 1122, or a combination thereof… software environment 1120 may comprise a user interface 1124 (e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) [e.g. second interface] for receiving user commands and data” Thus, Factor supplies the user command and the GUI 1124 to run its methods, and read each file’s ‘modified’ mark whose value distinguishes “marked as ‘modified’” from “unmodified”) Factor does not explicitly teach in response to an operation entered by the user. However, Chen paragraph [0091] teaches that “The mobile terminal client will perform corresponding operations on the files according to the selection made by the user” It would have been obvious to perform factor’s per-file modification check in response to the user’s selection as Chen teaches, so cleanup acts on the files the user actually choose at the time the user chooses them, rather than only on a background schedule, yielding predictable results. compressing a part of the plurality of duplicate files to a same storage space based on the values of the indication fields of the plurality of duplicate files at the third moment. (See Factor [0032], abstract “inodes that are tagged as updated [Thus, based on the values of the indication fields] are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected… When a second content that is a duplicate of the first content is to be stored, then a parent inode is created to point to the data blocks in which a copy of the first content is stored. Further, two inodes are created, one representing the first content and the other representing the second content. Both inodes point to the same parent inode that points to the data blocks where the first content is stored.” Thus, Factor only deduplicates the not-modified subset, thus a file tagged as updated is not deduplicated.) Factor does not explicitly teach user-selected compress operation. However, Chen paragraph [0091] teaches “The cleanup operations selected by the user may be… compress-and-store” It would have been obvious to let the user invoke Factor’s compression through Chen’s compress-and-store selection, so the user can choose to reclaim storage from duplicates shown to them, thus optimizing resource utilization. Regarding claim 10, Factor-Chen teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 9, wherein the compressing the part of the plurality of duplicate files to the same storage space based on the values of the indication fields of the plurality of duplicate files at the third moment comprises: when a value of an indication field of a first file in the plurality of duplicate files at the third moment is a third value, compressing the first file. (See Factor [0032] “inodes that are tagged as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected, the tags are removed and the files are deduplicated [Thus, compressing] in a subsequent deduplication round.” Thus, deduplication occurs when at untagged state [e.g. third value].” Examiner notes that based on the specification paragraph [0294] “file deduplication is a possible implementation of file compression” the broadest reasonable interpretation of compressing the first file encompasses deduplicating the file. Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), in method claim “when a value… is a third value, compressing” is a condition precedent, the compressing step carries no weight in the method claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the alternative in which the condition is not met and the compressing step is not performed. For the purpose of compact prosecution only, however, the Examiner has shown that the limitation is taught by the cited reference(s). Regarding claim 11, Factor-Chen teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 9, wherein an initial value of the indication field of each duplicate file is a first value. (See Factor [0031] “updated content is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value” Thus, the untagged state is the first value.) Regarding claim 19, Factor-Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 9 in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 19. Regarding claim 20, Factor-Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 10 in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 10 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 20 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-14 and 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor-Chen, in view of Brown (US Patent Publication No. US6101585A) . Regarding claim 12, Factor-Chen teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 9, wherein before the displaying the second interface, the method further comprises: obtaining a plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning, wherein the plurality of candidate duplicate files comprise the plurality of duplicate files; (See Factor [0004-0005, 0031-0032] “blocks of data that are or are to be stored on a storage medium are compared [e.g. through scanning] to detect the duplicate copies… the data block signatures for the file content are compared with signatures in a hash table... If there is a match [Thus, the plurality of candidate duplicate files comprise the plurality of duplicate files], then instead of having duplicate copies of the same content, a corresponding reference is created to the matching content already stored in the file system. Thus, deduplication process may be applied to deduplicate files that are either being written to a storage media or to files that have been already stored on storage media… if a file in the file system is modified before a duplicate is identified for that file [e.g. candidate], the corresponding directory entry points to data blocks 250 having content that is inconsistent with the entry name… the inode with the updated content is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value… inodes that are tagged as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected, the tags are removed and the files [e.g. the plurality of candidate duplicate files comprise the plurality of duplicate files] are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.” See also Chen [0041] “a mobile terminal client scans a file system on a local mobile terminal to generate [Thus, obtains] a list of file information. [Thus, obtaining a plurality of candidate files (e.g. duplicate files) through scanning]”) attempting to modify a value of an indication field of each of the plurality of candidate duplicate files to the third value at a first moment; and (Factor [0031-0032] modification indicator [e.g. value of an indication field] is set by the system on modification and removed [e.g. third value, untagged] only after correction before running the deduplication process. Factor-Chen does not explicitly disclose an application affirmatively writing a baseline value into each candidate indication field at a chosen moment. Brown teaches attempting to modify a value of an indication field of each of the plurality of candidate duplicate files to the third value at a first moment in more details. (See Brown claim 1 ”creating a snapshot file in a read-only container, and duplicating contents of the on-line file to the snapshot file, each file [e.g. plurality of candidate duplicate file] initially having an archive bit change number (ABCN) attribute [e.g. indication field] of the same value [e.g. a value]; modifying the on-line file [e.g. when the first file is modified] to reflect changes by a user; asserting the archive bit and incrementing the ABCN of the on-line file in response to the step of modifying… issuing [Thus, modify a value] a clear archive bit command [e.g. third value] upon completion [e.g. first moment] of an incremental backup operation directed to the snapshot file [Thus, attempting to modify a value of an indication field of each of the plurality of candidate duplicate files]”) It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or supplement Factor modification indicator to incorporate the teachings of Brown of using archive bit change number to flag incremental file modifications to define a reference point which later changes are measured and clearing the flag after backup, as both represent known and interchangeable techniques for file modification check, yielding predictable results and improving system flexibility. Factor-Chen further in view of Brown, [hereinafter Factor-Chen-Brown] additionally disclose comparing the plurality of candidate duplicate files to determine the plurality of duplicate files from the plurality of candidate duplicate files. (See Factor [0005, 0027] “the data block signatures for the file content are compared with signatures in a hash table... If there is a match, then instead of having duplicate copies of the same content, a corresponding reference is created to the matching content already stored in the file system [Thus, comparing the plurality of candidate duplicate files to determine the plurality of duplicate files from the plurality of candidate duplicate files]… Referring to FIGS. 5 and 6, if it is determined that a duplicate copy of the file content… already exists in the file system”) Regarding claim 13, Factor-Chen-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 12, wherein after the plurality of duplicate files are determined, the method further comprises: storing information about the plurality of duplicate files in a database, wherein the information about the duplicate files comprises any one or more of the following information: index node numbers of the duplicate files, and names of the duplicate files. (See Factor [0021, 0018] “a directory 210 (e.g., an indexing data structure) [e.g. database] that is used to maintain and manage the location of storage of each file [e.g. duplicate files] by providing an association between the filename and the inode for the respective file in the storage system… The metadata may be stored in an inode that is identified by an integer number (e.g., i-number). [Thus, storing names and index node numbers]”) Regarding claim 14, Factor-Chen-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 12, wherein the obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning comprises: displaying a third interface, wherein the third interface comprises a first control; and (See Factor [0044-0046] “ Referring to FIG. 7B, software environment 1120… the methods and processes disclosed here may be implemented as system software 1121, application software 1122, or a combination thereof… software environment 1120 may comprise a user interface 1124 (e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) [Thus, displaying user interface (e.g. a third user interface)] for receiving user commands and data” Factor does not explicitly disclose that the interface include specific controls. However, Chen teaches the interface comprises a first control. (See Chen [0096] “The file cleanup module 414 [e.g. first control] is configured to receive, from the user, a request for cleaning up files in a comparison result file list“ Thus, Chen provides the cleanup module [e.g. first control] which receives user’s cleanup requests through the displayed file-list interface”) It would have been obvious to provide Factor’s user-commanded operation with a displayed control as in Chen, providing the user a mechanism to invoke the operation on the displayed files, yielding predictable results. detecting an operation of the user on the first control, and obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning. (See Chen [0096, 0050] “The file cleanup module 414 [e.g. first control] is configured to receive, from the user, a request [Thus, detecting an operation of the user on the first control] for cleaning up files in a comparison result file list… the scanning operation performed in the step of “the mobile phone client scans the file system” may be started on a request from the user“ See also Factor [0005] “the data block signatures for the file content are compared [e.g. scanning] with signatures in a hash table… If there is a match [Thus, obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning], then instead of having duplicate copies of the same content, a corresponding reference is created to the matching content already stored in the file system.”) Thus, Chen supplies that the scan is triggered by the user’s control operation, and Factor supplies that the scan identifies duplicate files. It would have been obvious to trigger Factor’s duplicate scan by the user’s control operation as Chen teaches, so the user can initiate duplicate detection on demand, yielding predictable results. Regarding claim 16, Factor-Chen-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 12, wherein the attempting to modify the value of the indication field of each of the plurality of candidate duplicate files to the third value comprises: when at least one of the plurality of candidate duplicate files meets a first condition, modifying a value of an indication field of the at least one candidate duplicate file to the third value, wherein in the first condition, a file system of the electronic device is able to detect a modification operation that is performed on the at least one candidate duplicate file in a time period from the first moment to a second moment. (See Factor [0031-0032] “the inode with the updated content is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value, for example… a background process may be executed to find updated files [e.g. plurality of candidate duplicate files] according to the tagged status of the respective inodes… inodes that are tagged as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected [(e.g. at a second moment) Thus, when at least one of the plurality of candidate duplicate files meets a first condition. Thus, detect a modification operation that is performed on the at least one candidate duplicate file in a time period from the first moment to a second moment], the tags are removed and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.” Examiner notes that Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), in method claim “when at least one of the plurality of candidate duplicate files meets a first condition, modifying” is a condition precedent, the compressing step carries no weight in the method claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the alternative in which the condition is not met and the modifying step is not performed. For the purpose of compact prosecution only, however, the Examiner has further shown that the limitation is taught by the cited reference(s).) Regarding claim 17, Factor-Chen-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 16, wherein obtaining the value of the indication field of the at least one duplicate file at the second moment comprises: at the second moment, learning that a value of an indication field of a target duplicate file in the at least one duplicate file is the third value; and (See Factor [0032] “ a background process may be executed to find updated files according to the tagged status of the respective inodes... inodes that are tagged as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected. Once corrected [e.g. at a second moment], the tags are removed [e.g. third value of an indication field] and the files [e.g. target duplicate file in the at least one duplicate file] are deduplicated [Thus, learning that a value of an indication field of a target duplicate file in the at least one duplicate file is the third value] in a subsequent deduplication round.”) the method further comprises: determining that the target duplicate file is not modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment when the value of the indication field of the target duplicate file at the second moment is the third value. (See Factor [0032] “a background process may be executed to find updated files according to the tagged status of the respective inodes… inodes that are tagged as updated are not deduplicated until the temporarily created directory inconsistency is corrected [e.g. at the second moment]. Once corrected [Thus, not modified], the tags are removed and the files are deduplicated in a subsequent deduplication round.” Examiner notes that Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), in method claim “determining… when the value… is a third value” is a condition precedent, the determining step carries no weight in the method claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the alternative in which the condition is not met and the determining step is not performed. For the purpose of compact prosecution only, however, the Examiner has further shown that the limitation is taught by the cited reference(s).) Regarding claim 18, Factor-Chen-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 16, wherein the plurality of candidate duplicate files comprise a third file; and after the first moment, the method further comprises: detecting that the third file is modified, and modifying a value of an indication field of the third file to a second value; (See Factor [0031] “if a file [e.g. third file] in the file system is modified before a duplicate is identified for that file [Thus, detecting that the third file is modified], the corresponding directory entry points to data blocks 250 having content that is inconsistent with the entry name… the inode with the updated content is tagged by way of setting an associated flag or indicator value [(e.g. a second value) Thus, modifying a value of an indication field of the third file], for example.”) at the second moment, learning that a value of the indication field of the third file is not the third value; and determining that the third file is modified in the time period from the first moment to the second moment. (See Factor [0032] “a background process may be executed to find [e.g. determining] updated files according to the tagged status of the respective inodes. [Thus, reading the indicator at a later time and finding it tagged (e.g. not the third value). Thus, learning that a value is not the third value]”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor-Chen-Brown, in view of Wei (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN103064675A) . Regarding claim 15, Factor-Chen-Brown teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 12, wherein the obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning comprises: when the electronic device is idle, obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning. Examiner notes that Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), in method claim “when the electronic device is idle, obtaining” is a condition precedent, the compressing step carries no weight in the method claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the alternative in which the condition is not met and the obtaining step is not performed. For the purpose of compact prosecution only, however, the Examiner has further shown below that the limitations is taught by the cited reference(s). Factor-Chen-Brown does not explicitly disclose when the electronic device is idle, obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning. However, Wei teaches when the electronic device is idle, obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning. (See Wei [0025] “The method and apparatus for automatically cleaning redundant files [e.g. plurality of candidate duplicate files] in a mobile terminal according to the present invention can ensure that the cleaning of redundant files only begins when the mobile terminal is in a standby state with the screen off and no operation commands are input. This allows for automatic cleaning when the mobile device is idle [Thus, when the electronic device is idle, obtaining the plurality of candidate duplicate files through scanning], thus preventing the process of cleaning redundant files from affecting the user's normal use of the mobile terminal and improving the user experience” See also Wei [0035-0036] “In step S30, if the mobile terminal screen is detected to be off… S40. Start cleaning up redundant files on your mobile device… scan the folders that need to be cleaned to find any residual registry entries, cache files, and temporary files that can be deleted.”) It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Factor to incorporate the teachings of Wei of performing duplicate file cleanup/scanning while the system is idle. One would be motivated to do so to ensure duplicate-file scanning does not affect user-systems when in use. Thus, improving the user experience. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm ET. 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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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. /OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161 /APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 2 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 3 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 4 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 5 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 6 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 7 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 8 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 9 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 10 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 11 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 12 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 13 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 14 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 15 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 16 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 17 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 18 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 19 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 20 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 21 Art Unit: 2161 Application/Control Number: 19/069,237 Page 22 Art Unit: 2161
Prosecution Insights