DETAILED ACTION
This action responds to Application No. 19/201716, filed 05/07/2025, and to the preliminary amendment filed 06/16/2025.
At this point, claim 1 has been cancelled. New claims 2-21 have been added, and are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 14-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13, 15, 13, and 13-20 of US Patent No. 12340104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, claims 2, 3, 6, and 14-21 merely represent broadened versions of the subject matter of claims 13, 15, 13, and 13-20 of Patent No. 12340104.
Claims 2, 4-5, 6-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, and 6-12 of US Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani.
Re claims 2 and 6, it is noted that while claim 13 of Patent No. 12340104 is closest in scope to instant claims 2 and 6, claims 1 and 6 could similarly be used to reject instant claims 2 and 6, but they do not explicitly disclose to “notify the requesting system”. Accordingly, Examiner has provided Tani.
Tani discloses to notify the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data (col. 12, lines 5-18). Switching the system to “no save” mode indicates to (notifies) the requesting system that the data may be restored to the first system (intended storage system has become available).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify claims 1 and 6, respectively, of Patent No. 12340104 to add the step of notifying the requested system that the intended storage is available, as in Tani, because it would be applying a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Patent No. 12340104 discloses a method of utilizing alternate storage and restoring data to the intended storage. Tani also discloses utilizing alternate storage and restoring data to the intended storage, which has been improved in a similar way to the claimed invention, to notify the requestor when the storage is free to restore the data. It would have been obvious to integrate the notification feature of Tani into claims 1 and 6, respectively, of Patent No. 12340104, because it would yield the predictable improvement of providing the requestor with the information so that it may make the decision to begin restoration of data.
Re claims 4-5, as noted above, claim 1 of Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani discloses instant claim 2; furthermore, claims 4-5 of Patent No. 12340104 disclose broadened versions of instant claims 4-5, which depend on instant claim 2. Accordingly, instant claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani.
Re claim 7, claims 6 of Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani discloses instant claim 6, and claim 6 of Patent No. 12340104 further discloses a broadened version of instant claim 7.
Re claim 8, claim 6 of Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani discloses instant claim 6, and claim 6 of Patent No. 12340104 further discloses a broadened version of instant claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose notifying the requesting system.
Tani further discloses to notify the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available to store the second portion of the data (col. 12, lines 5-18). Switching the system to “no save” mode indicates to (notifies) the requesting system that the data may be restored to the first system (intended storage system has become available).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Patent No. 12340104 and Tani, for the reasons noted in claim 6 above.
Re claim 9, claim 6 of Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani discloses instant claim 8, and claim 6 of Patent No. 12340104 further discloses a broadened version of instant claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose retrieving an returning the portion of the data in response to notifying the requesting system.
Tani further discloses that in response to notifying the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data, retrieving the portion of the data from the first alternative storage system; and returning, to the intended storage system, the portion of the data (Fig. 3; col. 2, line 53 to col. 3, line 5; col. 12, lines 5-18). In response to detecting that there is no longer a danger of an overflow (the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data), the system exits save mode to no save mode, and restores the data to the primary (intended) storage system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Patent No. 12340104 and Tani, for the reasons noted in claim 6 above.
Re claims 10-13, claim 6 of Patent No. 12340104 in view of Tani discloses instant claim 6, and claims 9-12 of Patent No. 12340104 further discloses broadened versions of instant claims 10-13, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-13 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, as follows:
Re claim 6, the limitation “the first alternative storage system” (line 11) has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. There is support for “an alternative storage system”, but not for a specific “first” one.
Re claims 7-13, the claims are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 6 above.
Re Claim 8, the limitation “the second portion of the data temporarily stored in the first alternative storage system; and (lines 2-3) has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Parent claim 7 discloses that the second portion of the data is directed to the second alternative storage system, not the first alternative storage system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 14-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (US 5809078).
Re claim 2, Tani discloses the following:
A system comprising: computer-readable memory to store executable instructions; and a processor in communication with the computer-readable memory, wherein the processor is configured by the executable instructions to at least (col. 15, lines 29-38). The recording medium (computer-readable memory) stores a program (instructions) which execute on the processor;
identify, based at least in part on a request from a requesting system to store data, an intended storage system for the data, wherein the intended storage system is associated with a first storage type (col. 2, line 53 to col. 3, line 10). The primary buffer (intended storage system) is for storing the data stream to be relayed. It is a high-speed memory (first storage type). It receives the data stream from a transmitting node (requesting system);
in response to determining that the intended storage system is unavailable to store the data, identify, based at least in part on the request, an alternative storage system that is available to store the data, (col. 2, line 53 to col. 3, line 5). The system identifies a second buffer section (alternative storage) that is available to store the data, when an overflow danger condition occurs (intended storage system is unavailable)
wherein the alternative storage system is associated with a second storage type different from the first storage type (Abstract). The second buffer (alternative storage) is larger and slower (different storage type) than the primary buffer (first storage type);
direct at least a portion of the data to the alternative storage system for storage without provisioning additional storage for the portion in the intended storage system (col. 3, lines 6-24). When there is a danger of an overflow, a portion of the data input to the primary buffer is transferred (directed) to the secondary buffer. Tani does not disclose provisioning additional storage in the primary buffer in this scenario;
determine the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data stored in the alternative storage system; and notify the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data (col. 12, lines 5-18). When it is determined that there is no danger of overflow in the primary buffer (intended storage system has become available), the system switches to no save mode (notifying the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available).
While Tani discloses the limitations above, it discloses a plurality of embodiments; it is accordingly not explicitly stated whether each element is disclosed in a single embodiment. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Tani to combine these limitations into a single embodiment, as it would merely be making the embodiments integral (MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)).
Re claim 4, Tani discloses the system of claim 2, and further discloses that transmitting the portion of the data to the alternative storage system for storage comprises redirecting a stream of the data to the first alternative storage system (col. 11, lines 38-48). When a danger of an overflow is directed, the data of a stream is re-output (redirected) to the first alternative storage system.
Re claim 6, Tani discloses the system of claim 1; accordingly, it also discloses a method implemented by that system, as in claim 6 (see Tani, claim 11).
Re claim 9, Tani discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses that in response to notifying the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data, retrieving the portion of the data from the first alternative storage system; and returning, to the intended storage system, the portion of the data (Fig. 3; col. 2, line 53 to col. 3, line 5; col. 12, lines 5-18). In response to detecting that there is no longer a danger of an overflow (the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data), the system exits save mode to no save mode, and restores the data to the primary (intended) storage system.
Re claim 14, Tani discloses the system of claim 1; accordingly, it also discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions implementing the same functionality as that system, as in claim 14 (see Tani, col. 6, lines 47-59).
Re claim 15, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, and further discloses to receive a second request from the requesting system, in response to notifying requesting system that the intended storage system has become available, to store the portion of the data in the intended storage system; and direct the portion of the data to the intended storage system (Fig. 3; col. 2, line 53 to col. 3, line 5; col. 12, lines 5-18). In response to detecting that there is no longer a danger of an overflow (the intended storage system has become available to store the portion of the data), the system exits save mode to no save mode, informing the requesting system, and the system (requesting system) restores (a second request to store the portion of the data to the primary (intended) storage system.
Re claim 16, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, and further discloses that the intended storage system is determined to be unavailable based on at least one of: a lack of available storage capacity, a connection failure, or a lack of processing capability (col. 2, line 53 to col. 3, line 5). The overflow danger condition is an indication that there is a lack of available storage capacity.
Re claim 17, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, and further discloses that the first storage type is at least one of: a database storage type, a streaming data storage type, or a type provided by a first service provider (Abstract). The first storage system temporarily stores data of a data stream, so it is a streaming data storage type.
Re claim 19, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, and further discloses that to determine that the intended storage system has become available, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computer, cause the processor to at least: transmit a status request to the intended storage system; and receive a current status indication from the intended storage system indicating the intended storage system has storage capacity to store the portion of the data temporarily stored in the first alternative storage system (Fig. 6; col. 12, lines 5-18). A status request is sent to determine whether the status is such that restore processing may begin; if there is a sufficient margin such that there is no danger of an overflow, then the primary cache (intended storage system) has capacity to store the restored data from the first alternative storage system.
Re claim 21, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, and further discloses that the requesting system is a streaming data source, and wherein the intended storage system comprises a streaming data processing system (Abstract). The transmitting node transmits a data stream (streaming data source), and the first storage system (intended storage system) temporarily stores data of a data stream, so it is a streaming data processing system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Surcouf et al (US 2020/0076892 A1).
Re claim 3, Tani discloses the system of claim 2 above, but does not explicitly disclose that the unavailability is based on insufficient processing capacity.
Surcouf discloses that the intended storage system is a data processing system, and wherein the data processing system is unavailable to store the data based at least in part on an insufficient processing capacity to process the portion of the data (¶ 92). A storage node (intended storage system) may remove itself from contention for servicing a storage request based on being overloaded, which among other things, may include being busy processing other operations, which would prevent it from meeting the performance or capacity requirements of servicing the request (insufficient processing capacity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the data processing system of Tani to make a storage unavailable based on having insufficient processing capacity, as in Surcouf, because Surcouf suggests that this would reduce storage latency by increasing the likelihood that a data request is serviced by a node having adequate bandwidth/capacity, and decreasing the likelihood of it being serviced by a node that has low bandwidth or is overloaded (¶ 26).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Dutton (US 4654847 A).
Re claim 5, Tani discloses the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose receiving a request for data and servicing it from the alternative storage system.
Dutton discloses that the processor is further configured by other executable instructions to at least: receive a request to access data; determine a current storage location of the data is the alternative storage system; and retrieve the portion of the data from the alternative storage system (col. 2, lines 16-32). When a read request is received, it is determined whether the data is located at the alternate memory array (alternative storage system), and if so, it will be read (retrieved) from a location in the alternate memory array.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the alternative storage system of Tani to allow data to be serviced from the alternative storage, as in Dutton, because Dutton suggests that providing an alternate memory array separate from the main array would improve performance (col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line 3).
Claims 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Kadatch et al (US 9250830 B2).
Re claim 7, Tani discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses overflowing data from a first storage to an alternative storage; however, it does not explicitly disclose a second alternative storage when the alternative storage cannot fit the entirety of the data.
Kadatch discloses the following:
determining that storing the data in the data’s entirety in the first alternative storage system would exceed the excess storage capacity of the first alternative storage system (claims 1 and 7). The method determines that a first cache is full, and then selects a second cache of a second node (alternative storage) to store a second portion of the data (claim 1). Subsequently, it determines that the second cache is full (storing the data in its entirety would exceed capacity of the first alternative storage) (claim 7);
in response to determining that storing the data in the data’s entirety would exceed the excess storage capacity of the first alternative storage system, identifying a second alternative storage system, which is available for temporary storage of data, wherein the second alternative storage system has excess storage capacity; and directing at least a second portion of the data to the second alternative storage system for temporary storage without provisioning additional storage for the second portion in the intended storage system (claim 7). In response to determining that the second cache is full (storing data in the entirety would exceed excess storage capacity of the first alternative storage system), a third cache of a third node (second alternative storage system) is selected for temporary storage of the data. This does not involve partitioning additional storage in the first cache of the first node (intended storage system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the storage overflow of Tani to have a cascading overflow to additional storages, as in Kadatch, because it would be applying a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. Tani discloses overflowing from a first storage location to a second location. Kadatch also discloses overflowing from a first storage to a second storage, and has been improved in a similar way to the claimed invention, to add a third storage which receives overflow from the second storage. It would have been obvious to add a third storage to receive overflow from a second storage, because it would yield the predictable improvement of adding the ability to handle more overflow, as the system would not only be able to handle a volume of requests which overload a first storage, but also be able to handle the second storage being overloaded.
Re claim 8, Tani and Kadatch disclose the method of claim 7, and Tani further discloses determining the intended storage has become available to store the […] portion of the data temporarily stored in the first alternative storage system; and notifying the requesting system that the intended storage system has become available to store the […] portion of the data (col. 12, lines 5-18). As noted above, this limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. As noted above, Examiner interprets this limitation to be referring to either the first or second portions of data, and the first or second alternative storage system. Accordingly, this limitation is rejected for similar reasons to those noted in claim 2 above.
Kadatch discloses a second portion of the data (claims 1 and 7). See claim 7 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Tani and Kadatch, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Re claim 10, Tani discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses combining the portion of the data and a second portion of the data retrieved from a […] alternative storage system to generate a combined portion of the data; and returning, to the intended storage system, the combined portion of the data (Fig. 3; col. 11, lines 62-67). Corresponding blocks (portion of the data, second portion of the data) are grouped (combined) and restored to the primary storage (intended storage system).
Kadatch discloses a second alternative storage system (claim 7). See claim 7 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Tani and Kadatch, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Re claim 12, Tani discloses the method of claim 6, but does not specifically disclose an alert, or a second alternative storage system.
Kadatch discloses the following:
receiving an alert indicating the excess storage capacity of the first alternative storage system is required to store data associated with the second storage type (claims 1 and 4-6). The storage engine selects one of the nodes (first alternative storage system), thus informing it (receiving an alert) indicating that it is to be used to store data; all data stored in the selected node is “associated with” the performance characteristics of the selected node;
identifying a second alternative storage system, which is available for temporary storage of the portion of the data, wherein the second alternative storage system has excess storage capacity; retrieving the portion from the alternative storage system; and transmitting the portion of the data to the second alternative storage system for temporary storage (col. 3, lines 12-22). The second node also contains a slower storage (second alternative storage system), which is identified as having greater storage capacity (excess capacity) than the second cache (first alternative storage system). Data is copied (retrieved and transmitted) between the cache and the slower storage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Tani and Kadatch, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Re claim 13, Tani discloses the method of claim 6, but does not specifically disclose a second alternative storage system associated with a third storage type.
Kadatch discloses the following:
identifying a second alternative storage system, which is available for temporary storage of data, wherein the second alternative storage system is associated with a third storage type (Claims 1 and 4-6; col. 1, line 60 to col. 2, line 28). When the first cache is full (intended storage), the system may choose from a plurality of remaining caches, and may do so by comparing free sizes or respective weights, which may be based on performance characteristics (storage types);
determining the third storage type is preferred over the second storage type based on a characteristic associated with the data (col. 1, line 60 to col. 2, line 28). Determining which node’s performance characteristics (storage type) are preferred is based on determining that the data storage rate of the data has dropped (a characteristic associated with the data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Tani and Kadatch, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Re claim 20, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, but does not specifically disclose directing another portion of data to a second alternative storage system.
Kadatch discloses instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to at least direct at least another portion of the data to a second alternative storage system for temporary storage (claims 1 and 7). See claim 7 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Tani and Kadatch, for the reasons noted in claim 7 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Yadav et al (US 2022/0214946 A1).
Re claim 11, Tani discloses the method of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose that the request is a database query.
Yadav discloses that the intended storage system is identified in response to a database query, wherein the data comprises a query response, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: transmitting the database query to a database system; and receiving the data from the database system (¶ 27). It is not clear whether “identified in response to a database query” means that the query itself contains the intended storage system info, or whether it means issuing the database query, and the response from the database query contains the intended storage system. Nevertheless, Yadav discloses either option, as it both discloses a write request, which includes a database lookup (query), specifying a storage destination (intended storage system), and also discloses determining a destination object storage (intended storage system) in response to the database lookup. Data is received based on this query (received from the database system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the storage system of Tani to include a database, as in Yadav, because Yadav suggests that utilizing a database associated with clients would enable efficiency by storing certain data associated with clients in the database (¶ 11).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Lee et al (US 2011/0167222 A1).
Re claim 18, Tani discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting a notification to the requesting system indicating that the data is in the alternative storage system.
Lee discloses to cause the processor to at least transmit, to the requesting system, a notification indicating the portion of the data is stored in the first alternative storage system (¶ 73). Data intended for a cache (first storage system) may overflow to an overflow storage (first alternative storage system). When this happens, the requesting processor (requesting system) may be notified that the requested data is in the overflow storage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the overflow storage system of Tani to notify the transmitting node (requesting system) that data has overflowed to another location, as in Lee, because it would be applying a known technique to improve a similar medium in the same way. Tani discloses an overflow storage system. Lee also discloses an overflow storage system, which has been improved in a similar way to the claimed invention, to inform the requestor that the data has overflowed to another location. It would have been obvious to modify the overflow storage of Tani to inform the requestor of the overflow, as in Lee, because it would yield the predictable improvement of giving the requestor information about how to locate the data in its alternate location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zeng et al (US 2020/0272577 A1). Discloses overflow capacity for portions of a cache (¶ 36).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights