DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to application 19/170,791 filed on 4/4/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11-14, are method claims that include one or more contingent clauses, such as “doing X, when Y” and do not explicitly claim that the condition, Y, positively occurs in the claimed language. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims does not include those X steps occurring. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04 (II).
Looking at claim 11, for example, the claim states, “stopping the first compression operation when a first sum size of a size of a first data from among the write data on which compression has been performed at a first timing, and a size of a second data from among the write data on which compression has not been performed at the first timing, is equal to or smaller than a storage size corresponding to (N-K+1) selection storage spaces at the first timing at which time an execution rate of the first compression operation reaches a first execution rate.” But the claim never explicitly recites that the claimed first sum size is “is equal to or smaller than a storage size corresponding to (N-K+1) selection storage spaces at the first timing at which time an execution rate of the first compression operation reaches a first execution rate”, nor does the claim even positively state that a first sum size is even calculated. As a result, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations is that the stopping of the first compression operation does not need to occur in the prior art for the claim to be met by the prior art. The same interpretation holds for “storing the first and second data in the (N-K+1) selection storage spaces when the first compression operation is stopped at the first timing,” in lines 17-19 of claim 11.
Claims 12-14 and 20 also claim similar contingent limitations without positively reciting that their condition occurs in the claim language and therefore have similar interpretations.
The examiner encourages the applicant to positively recite these conditions occurring in the claim limitations so that the resulting steps would be required to occur under the broadest reasonable interpretation of each claim. As an example for claim 11, “…determine that a first sum size of a size of a first data from among the write data on which compression has been performed at a first timing, and a size of a second data from among the write data on which compression has not been performed at the first timing, is equal to or smaller than a storage size corresponding to (N-K+1) selection storage spaces at the first timing at which time an execution rate of the first compression operation reaches a first execution rate; stopping the first compression operation in response to the determining; and storing the first and second data in the (N-K+1) selection storage spaces in response to the first compression operation is stopped at the first timing…” Similar amendments need to be made to claims 12-14 and 20 to correct their language.
The examiner would like to note, that in the interest of compact prosecution, prior art is being applied to claims 11-14 and 20 as if the claims positively recited the limitations in question.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “compression operation unit” and “control operation unit” in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shveidel et al. (US 10,013,200).
With respect to claim 1, Shveidel teaches of a storage device comprising: a memory device comprising a storage region (fig. 1; column 2, lines 53-59; storage item 108);
a compression operation unit configured to generate compression data by performing a first compression operation on write data (fig. 2, 6; column 6, lines 2-17, column 10, lines 8-30; where the processor receives a write request and compresses the payload data in the write request); and a
control operation unit configured to divide the storage region into a plurality of storage spaces (fig. 3c; column 5, lines 4-55; where the blocks of the storage are divided into a plurality of blocks),
configured to select N selection storage spaces from among the plurality of storage spaces (fig. 4-5; column 8, lines 46-56, column 9, lines 4-20, column 9, line 52-column 10, line 7; where the smallest block size in the storage is determined),
configured to control the compression operation unit (fig. 2, 6; column 6, lines 2-17, column 10, lines 8-30; where the processor receives a write request and compresses the payload data in the write request), and
configured to store a first data and a second data in (N-K+1) selection storage spaces when a first sum size of a size of the first data, which is a portion of the write data on which compression has been performed at a first timing, and a size of the second data, which is a portion of the write data on which compression has not been performed at the first timing, is equal to or smaller than a storage size corresponding to (N-K+1) selection storage spaces at the first timing when an execution rate of the first compression operation reaches a first execution rate (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where the data payload is compressed until 25% of the payload data is compressed and it is determined if the overall data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is smaller than the smallest block size. When it is, compression is stopped and the data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is stored),
wherein N is a natural number equal to or greater than 1, and K is a natural number that is equal to or smaller than N and equal to or greater than 1 (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where N is 1 and K is also 1).
With respect to claim 11, Shveidel teaches of the limitations cited and described above with respect to claim 1 for the same reasoning as recited with respect to claim 1.
Shveidel also teaches of an operating method of a storage device comprising selecting N selection storage spaces, among the plurality of storage spaces, based on a size of write data (fig. 4-5; column 8, lines 46-56, column 9, lines 4-column 10, line 7; where the sizes of the blocks are determined and the early compression threshold is determined size in the storage is determined);
performing a first compression operation to generate compression data from compressing the write data (fig. 2, 6; column 6, lines 2-17, column 10, lines 8-30; where the processor receives a write request and compresses the payload data in the write request);
stopping the first compression operation when a first sum size of a size of a first data from among the write data on which compression has been performed at a first timing, and a size of a second data from among the write data on which compression has not been performed at the first timing, is equal to or smaller than a storage size corresponding to (N-K+1) selection storage spaces at the first timing at which time an execution rate of the first compression operation reaches a first execution rate (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where the data payload is compressed until 25% of the payload data is compressed and it is determined if the overall data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is smaller than the smallest block size. When it is, compression is stopped and the data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is stored); and
storing the first and second data in the (N-K+1) selection storage spaces when the first compression operation is stopped at the first timing (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where it is determined if the overall data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is smaller than the smallest block size. When it is, compression is stopped and the data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is stored).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Shveidel teaches of wherein the control operation unit controls the compression operation unit to continue the first compression operation without storing the first data and the second data when the first sum size is greater than the storage size at the first timing (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where the data payload is isn’t smaller than the smallest block size, then the next portion of the payload data is compressed instead of storing the payload data), and
controls the compression operation unit to stop the first compression operation when a second sum size of a size of a third data, which is a portion of the write data on which compression has been performed at a second timing, and a size of fourth data, which is a portion of the write data on which compression has not been performed at a second timing, is equal to or smaller than the storage size at the second timing when the execution rate of the first compression operation reaches a second execution rate higher than the first execution rate (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where the next portion of the data payload is compressed and then it is determined if the overall data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is smaller than the smallest block size. When it is, compression is stopped and the data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is stored) and
then stores the third and fourth data in the (N-K+1) selection storage spaces (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where it is determined if the overall data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is smaller than the smallest block size. When it is, compression is stopped and the data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Shveidel teaches of wherein the control operation unit controls the compression operation unit to continue the first compression operation without storing the third data and the fourth data when the second sum size is greater than the storage size at the second timing and store the compression data after the first compression operation has been completed in the N selection storage spaces (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where the data payload is isn’t smaller than the smallest block size, then the next portion of the payload data is compressed instead of storing the payload data. When the next portion of the data payload is compressed and then it is determined if the overall data payload (compressed portion and uncompressed portion) is smaller than the smallest block size. When it is not, and all of the payload data is compressed, the compressed data payload is stored).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Shveidel teaches of wherein the control operation unit stores the compression data on which the first compression operation has been completed in the N selection storage spaces when the first sum size is greater than the storage size at the first timing (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where the data payload is isn’t smaller than the smallest block size, and all of the payload data is compressed, the compressed data payload is stored).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shveidel and Lin (US 2019/0124395).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Shveidel teaches of wherein the control operation unit sets each of the plurality of storage spaces to have a first space size (fig. 3c; column 5, lines 4-55; where the blocks of the storage are divided into a plurality of blocks having a plurality of sizes).
Shveidel fails to explicitly teach of calculates a predicted size of the compression data based on a size of the write data, and determines a value of N on the basis of the predicted size and the first space size.
However, Lin teaches of calculates a predicted size of the compression data based on a size of the write data (fig. 1; paragraph 5; where the worst-case scenario compression size is estimated as 5 MB), and
determines a value of N on the basis of the predicted size and the first space size (fig. 1; paragraph 5-7; where 5 1 MB pages are allocated).
Shveidel and Lin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they are directed to data compression.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Shveidel and Lin before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate the allocation of data blocks based on the worst compression scenario in Shveidel as taught in Lin. Their motivation would have been to ensure enough storage is available to store the compressed data.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Lin teaches of wherein the control operation unit determines the value of N by rounding up a decimal number value that is calculated by dividing the predicted size by the first space size (fig. 1; paragraph 5-7; as shown in figure 1c, data D3 fills 2+ pages. This suggests to one ordinary skill in the art that for fraction amounts, the storage is rounded up in order to ensure there is a place for the data to be stored).
The reasoning for obviousness is the same as indicated above with respect to claims 5 and 15.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shveidel and Lin (US 2019/0124395).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Shveidel teaches of wherein the control operation unit sets a first storage space, among the plurality of storage spaces, to have a second space size, sets a second storage space, among the plurality of storage spaces, to have a third space size that is smaller than the second space size (fig. 3c; column 5, lines 4-55; where the blocks of the storage are divided into a plurality of blocks having a plurality of sizes).
Shveidel fails to explicitly teach of calculates a predicted size of the compression data based on a size of the write data, and sets L first storage spaces and M second storage spaces as the N selection storage spaces by determining a value of L and a value of M on the basis of the predicted size and the value of N, which is a sum of the value of L and the value of M, wherein L a natural number that is equal to or smaller than N and equal to or greater than 1, and M is an integer equal to or greater than 0.
However, Lin teaches of wherein the control operation unit sets a first storage space, among the plurality of storage spaces, to have a second space size, sets a second storage space, among the plurality of storage spaces, to have a third space size that is smaller than the second space size (abstract, paragraph 10-11, 26; where the large pages have a 1 MB size and the small pages have a 128 KB size),
calculates a predicted size of the compression data based on a size of the write data (abstract, paragraph 10-11, 25; where the prediction circuit calculates a predicted data size for the compressed data), and
sets L first storage spaces and M second storage spaces as the N selection storage spaces by determining a value of L and a value of M on the basis of the predicted size and the value of N, which is a sum of the value of L and the value of M (fig. 4a-b; paragraph 27, 30-31; where N large pages and M small pages are used to store the compressed data),
wherein L a natural number that is equal to or smaller than N and equal to or greater than 1, and M is an integer equal to or greater than 0 (fig. 4a-b; paragraph 27, 30-31; as shown in the figure 4b, there are 4 large pages and 7 small pages storing the predicted data size).
Shveidel and Lin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they are directed to data compression.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Shveidel and Lin before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate the allocation of different sized blocks in Shveidel as taught in Lin. Their motivation would have been to more efficiently use the storage.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Lin teaches of wherein the control operation unit sets the value of L by rounding down a decimal number value that is obtained by dividing the predicted size by the second space size, sets the value of M by rounding up a decimal number value that is obtained by dividing a size, calculated by subtracting L second space sizes from the predicted size, by the third space size, and obtains the value of N by adding the value of L and the value of M (fig. 4a-b; paragraph 27, 30-31; where when the predicted data size is 4.837 MB, 4 large pages are used and 7 small pages are used. This shows that the large page number is rounded down and the small page number is rounded up. The total number of pages can be obtained by adding the number of large and small pages).
The reasoning for obviousness is the same as indicated above with respect to claims 7 and 17.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shveidel and Golden et al. (US 2017/0185313).
With respect to claim 9 and 19, Shveidel teaches of wherein the compression operation unit divides the write data into a plurality of partial data (column 9, lines 42-51; where the payload data is compressed in individual portions of 25% of the entire payload data),
Shveidel fails to explicitly teach of confirms features of the plurality of partial data, arranges an order of the plurality of partial data based on results of the confirmation, and performs the first compression operation in the arranged order.
However, Golden teaches of wherein the compression operation unit divides the write data into a plurality of partial data (fig. 3; paragraph 34; where the data is made up of data elements)
confirms features of the plurality of partial data, arranges an order of the plurality of partial data based on results of the confirmation, and performs the first compression operation in the arranged order (fig. 3; paragraph 36-38, 41-43; where the data elements are prioritized for compression by ranking them by the expected benefit to be gained from their compression and they are compressed using a compression algorithm based on their ranking/prioritization).
Shveidel and Golden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they are directed to data compression.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Shveidel and Golden before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the prioritization of the data elements to be compressed in Shveidel as taught in Golden. Their motivation would have been to more efficiently utilize the computing resources to obtain the most benefit from compression (Golden, paragraph 4-6).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shveidel.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Shveidel teaches of wherein the control operation unit stops the first compression operation when the first sum size is equal to or smaller than the storage size (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; where when the overall data payload size of the compressed and non-compressed parts are less than the smallest block size, the compression is stopped).
Shveidel fails to explicitly teach of then controls the compression operation unit to perform a second compression operation on the second data, and stores data generated by the second compression operation in the (N-K+1) selection storage spaces along with the first data after the second compression operation is completed, wherein the second compression operation operates faster than the first compression operation and has a lower compression rate than the first compression operation.
However, Shveidel suggests, then controls the compression operation unit to perform a second compression operation on the second data and stores data generated by the second compression operation in the (N-K+1) selection storage spaces along with the first data after the second compression operation is completed, wherein the second compression operation operates faster than the first compression operation and has a lower compression rate than the first compression operation (fig. 4-5; column 9, line 4-column 10, line 7; the data that is not compressed from the payload is the same as data compressed with a 1:1 compression ratio. Thus, the stored payload data contains data that has two different compression ratios with the second data being having lower compression rate and quicker compression operation than the first).
Shveidel is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor, as they are directed to data compression.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Shveidel before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the storing of payload data with two different compression rates for the payload data where one compression rate is 1:1. Their motivation would have been to more utilize the computing resources to store the payload data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xie et al. (US 2025/0284431) disclosing sequentially sorting to be compressed data blocks before they are compressed and compressing the sorted data blocks to more efficiently utilize the storage.
Armangau et al. (US 11,216,186) discloses inline compression where the data is reordered into segment order to increase the compression ratio.
Mitchell et al. (US 11,349,894) discloses compressing a first portion of an item with a first compression algorithm and compressing a second portion of the item with a second compression algorithm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C KROFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-8193. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8am -5pm, first Friday off.
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, Tim Vo can be reached on (571) 272-3642. 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.
/Michael Krofcheck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights