CTNF 19/083,213 CTNF 92539 DETAILED ACTION 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the parent patent recites every limitation of claim 1 of instant application. A table is presented for better understanding of the comparison . Parent patent Instant application A system comprising: A method, comprising: a chunk deduplicator obtaining a batch of data chunks of an original data object; identifying a first duplicate data chunk in a batch of data chunks of an original data object; and a hash value generator of the chunk deduplicator calculating a hash value for each data chunk in the batch; a duplicate identifier of the chunk deduplicator identifying a first duplicate data chunk in the batch of data chunks using the hash value of the first duplicate data chunk and a hash map, wherein the hash map indexes data chunks with hash values of the indexed data chunks; and the chunk deduplicator deduplicating the identified first duplicate data chunk by: deduplicating the identified first duplicate data chunk by: assigning a chunk logical block address (LBA) in a range of chunk LBAs of a chunk object to the first duplicate data chunk; assigning a chunk logical block address (LBA) in a range of chunk LBAs of a chunk object to the first duplicate data chunk; migrating payload data of the first duplicate data chunk from the original data object to the chunk object; migrating payload data of the first duplicate data chunk from the original data object to the chunk object; updating a chunk map of the chunk object to map the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk to a physical sector address (PSA) of the migrated payload data of the first duplicate data chunk on the chunk object; updating a chunk map of the chunk object to map the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk to a physical sector address (PSA) of the migrated payload data of the first duplicate data chunk on the chunk object; updating a hash entry indexed by the hash value of the first duplicate data chunk in the hash map to map to the chunk object and the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk; and updating an address map of the original data object to map an LBA of the first duplicate data chunk to the chunk object and the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk. updating an address map of the original data object to map an LBA of the first duplicate data chunk to the chunk object and the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk . 08-34 AIA Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the parent patent recites every limitation of claim 2 of instant application. A table is presented for better understanding of the comparison . Parent patent Instant application A system comprising: a chunk deduplicator obtaining a batch of data chunks of an original data object; a hash value generator of the chunk deduplicator calculating a hash value for each data chunk in the batch; a duplicate identifier of the chunk deduplicator identifying a first duplicate data chunk in the batch of data chunks using the hash value of the first duplicate data chunk and a hash map, wherein the hash map indexes data chunks with hash values of the indexed data chunks; and wherein identifying the first duplicate chunk comprises identifying the first duplicate data chunk in the batch of data chunks using a hash value of the first duplicate data chunk and a hash map that indexes data chunks with hash values of the indexed data chunks. the chunk deduplicator deduplicating the identified first duplicate data chunk by: assigning a chunk logical block address (LBA) in a range of chunk LBAs of a chunk object to the first duplicate data chunk; migrating payload data of the first duplicate data chunk from the original data object to the chunk object; updating a chunk map of the chunk object to map the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk to a physical sector address (PSA) of the migrated payload data of the first duplicate data chunk on the chunk object; updating a hash entry indexed by the hash value of the first duplicate data chunk in the hash map to map to the chunk object and the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk; and updating an address map of the original data object to map an LBA of the first duplicate data chunk to the chunk object and the assigned chunk LBA of the first duplicate data chunk . 08-34 AIA Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the parent patent recites every limitation of claim 3 of instant application. A table is presented for better understanding of the comparison . Parent patent Instant application the duplicate identifier identifying a unique data chunk in the batch of data chunks using the hash value of the unique data chunk and the hash map; and identifying a unique data chunk in the batch of data chunks using the hash value of the unique data chunk and the hash map; and the chunk deduplicator facilitating future deduplication of the identified unique data chunk by: facilitating future deduplication of the identified unique data chunk by: inserting a hash entry into the hash map that is indexed by the hash value of the unique data chunk; inserting into the hash map a hash entry that is indexed by the hash value of the unique data chunk; updating the inserted hash entry to include an object ID of the original data object; and updating the inserted hash entry to include an object ID of the original data object; and updating the inserted hash entry to include an LBA that references the unique data chunk in the address map of the original data object, whereby the inserted hash entry enables identification of future duplicate data chunks of the unique data chunk. updating the inserted hash entry to include an LBA that references the unique data chunk in the address map of the original data object, whereby the inserted hash entry enables the identification of future duplicate data chunks of the unique data chunk . 08-34 AIA Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the parent patent recites every limitation of claim 4 of instant application. A table is presented for better understanding of the comparison . Parent patent Instant application wherein the first duplicate data chunk is part of a group of duplicate data chunks identified in the batch of data chunks of the original data object; the first duplicate data chunk is part of a group of duplicate data chunks identified in the batch of data chunks of the original data object; and wherein hash entries associated with the group of duplicate data chunks are stored in hash maps of multiple hash objects; and wherein payload data of each duplicate data chunk of the group of duplicate data chunks is migrated to the chunk object. payload data of each duplicate data chunk of the group of duplicate data chunks is migrated to the chunk object . 08-34 AIA Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the parent patent recites every limitation of claim 5 of instant application. A table is presented for better understanding of the comparison . Parent patent Instant application wherein the first duplicate data chunk is part of a group of duplicate data chunks identified in the batch of data chunks of the original data object; wherein hash entries associated with the group of duplicate data chunks are stored in hash maps of multiple hash objects; and wherein hash entries associated with the group of duplicate data chunks are stored in hash maps of multiple hash objects. wherein payload data of each duplicate data chunk of the group of duplicate data chunks is migrated to the chunk object . 08-34 AIA Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the parent patent recites every limitation of claim 6 of instant application. A table is presented for better understanding of the comparison . Parent patent Instant application the chunk deduplicator determining that an initialized chunk object with remaining available address space is not available; and determining that an initialized chunk object with remaining available address space is not available; and the chunk deduplicator initializing the chunk object with a continuous range of chunk LBAs prior to the first duplicate data chunk being deduplicated. initializing the chunk object with a continuous range of chunk LBAs prior to the first duplicate data chunk being deduplicated. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 2. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 3. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 4. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 5. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 6. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 1. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 2. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 3. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 4. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 5. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,298 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 6 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claim 1 recites the following allowable subject matter: “deduplicating the identified first duplicate data chunk by: assigning a chunk logical block address (LBA) in a range of chunk LBAs of a chunk object to the first duplicate data chunk;” Closest prior art McIlroy et al. [US 2021/0109900] appears to teach hash value in the memory index component to facilitate determining whether inline data deduplication is to be performed on a chunk of data being written to the memory component (e.g., to remove that chunk of data from the write operation), whether post-process data deduplication is to be performed on a chunk of data being written to the memory component (e.g., to remove the chunk of data from the memory component because it is a duplicate of another chunk of data stored in the memory component), whether data deduplication is to be performed on a chunk of data that has been read from the memory component, or whether no data deduplication operation is to be performed. Sesson et al. [US 2020/0264791] appears to teach data may be migrated from one storage device to another device because of a drive failure or to alleviate capacity concerns. Data can also be migrated to different storage devices based on the type of data that is stored. The deduplication component is a component of storage system configured to identify unique chunks of data, or byte patterns, and stores a signature of the chunk for reference when writing new data chunks. AGRAWAL et al. [US 2016/0078068] appears to teach deduplication via a chunk table mapping. However, the prior arts of record do not appear to teach or fairly suggest assigning a chunk logical block address (LBA) in a range of chunk LBAs of a chunk object to the first duplicate data chunk. Based on this rationale, claim 1 is considered to contain allowable subject matter. Independent claim 8 recites the same allowable subject matter on a computer program product claim. Under the same rationale of allowability of claim 1, claim 8 is considered to contain allowable subject matter. Independent claim 15 recites the same allowable subject matter on a system claim. Under the same rationale of allowability of claim 1, claim 8 is considered to contain allowable subject matter . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD K KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8am-5pm). 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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. /MASUD K KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 2 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 3 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 4 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 5 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 6 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 7 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 8 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/083,213 Page 10 Art Unit: 2132
Prosecution Insights