DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 06/02/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In the response filed 06/02/2026, claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and 15 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
The Applicant’s Interview Summary is acknowledged and it is OK.
The Applicant’s amendment regarding specification objection is accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior specification objection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments regarding 35 USC 112(b) rejections are accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 that the cited reference do not teach the newly amended limitation of “wherein, during an operation of shrinking the partition, the first area is a non-reclaimable area and the second area is a reclaimable area” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over the new reference, Guo et al., CN 110688327 A.
The new combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses all the limitations of amended claims 1 and 11. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al., US 2021/0247930 (Gupta, hereafter) in view of Wallman, US 2009/0276600 and further in view of Torrant et al., US 2015/0169439 (Torrant, hereafter) and further in view of Guo et al., CN 110688327 A (Guo, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1,
Gupta discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to (See Gupta: at least Fig. 2 and para 38-40):
write a plurality of files of an application to the memory in response to a file input request of the application (See Gupta: at least Fig. 3-4, and para 41, 46, 50, and 56, writing files or data elements (of an application or file system) into a memory/cache);
determine one or more pinned files, from among the plurality of files (See Gupta: at least Fig. 14, Fig. 17, para 73, 74, and 79, determining “pinned storage
elements” based on cache directory);
classify one or more hot files and one or more cold files, from among a remaining plurality of files that are not pinned, according to a plurality of write patterns of the remaining plurality of files (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, and 81, dividing the storage elements into “written to infrequently” (cold files) and frequently written to (hot files) based on updating/writing frequency of the storage elements); and
store the one or more pinned files and the one or more cold files in a first area of the memory that has a fixed size, and store the one or more hot files in a second area of the memory(See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, Fig. 14, and para 45, 46, 59, 61, 71-73, storing the pinned storage elements a “pinned volume storage area 1400” of the “lower performance portion 218b” along with low frequently read/update data (having fixed memory space), and storing high read/update frequent data in the “higher performance portion 218a”).
Although, Gupta discloses storing high frequently read/updated a storage element in second rea of a cache, Gupta does not explicitly teach store the one or more hot files in a second area of the memory that has a variable size.
On the other hand, Wallman discloses storing frequently-accessed pages or files to a variable-sized memory buffer (See Wallman: at least para 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Gupta with Wallman’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve memory performance and utilization based on availability of memory.
The combination of Gupta and Wallman discloses the limitations as stated above. However, it does not explicitly teach determine, based on available storage space in the first area being less than a predetermined level, one or more first files with allocated block addresses that are changeable, from among a first plurality of files stored in the first area; and move, from the first area to the second area, the one or more first files, and store the one or more pinned files in a space of the first area that is generated based on moving the one or more first files.
On the other hand, Torrant disclose determine, based on available storage space in the first area being less than a predetermined level, one or more first files with allocated block addresses that are changeable, from among a first plurality of files stored in the first area (See Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, determining based on eviction policy (such whether enough memory space available), one or more unpinned pages (which addresses are changeable, as opposite to pinned pages/files); and move, from the first area to the second area, the one or more first files, and store the one or more pinned files in a space of the first area that is generated based on moving the one or more first files (See Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, evicting or moving the unpinned files to another memory and generating space (which the pinned pages/files could be stored)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of combination of Gupta and Wallman with Torrant’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve memory performance and utilization by generating memory space for pinned files when memory space is limited.
The combination of Gupta, Wallman, and Torrant discloses the limitations as stated above including reducing/shrinking storage portion by removing data elements from the portion (See Gupta: at least Fig. 6-7, Fig. 11, and para 54, 58, and 61-62). However, it does not explicitly teach wherein, during an operation of shrinking the partition, the first area is a non-reclaimable area and the second area is a reclaimable area.
On the other hand, Guo discloses a first memory block containing a first type of information is recoverable (re-claimable) and a second memory block including a second type of information is non-recoverable (non-reclaimable) (See Guo: at least highlighted sections). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of combination of Gupta, Wallman, and Torrant with Guo’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve memory performance by recycling memory space and avoiding memory fragmentation.
Regarding claim 2,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses wherein a hot
file is modified or deleted more than a cold file, and a pinned file has an allocated block address that is determined to be unchangeable, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52), cause the electronic device to: identify whether a file is stored in the second area based on receiving, from the application, information indicating that a file block stored in the memory corresponds to the file, and the file is to have an attribute indicating the file is pinned; and move the file to the first area based on identifying that the file is stored in the second area, and designate the attribute to indicate the file is pinned (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, marking a file/page as “pinned” and transferring the pinned file/page to different memory).
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses preferentially store the one or more hot files in the second area; and store at least one of the one or more hot files in the first area based on determining there is insufficient storage space in the second area (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, the frequently modified files are stored in the high performance memory portion, and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that those files could be stored in the another memory if there is not enough memory space in the high performance memory portion).
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses preferentially
store the one or more cold files in the first area; and store at least one of the one or more cold files in the second area based on determining there is insufficient storage space in the first area (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, the infrequently modified files are stored in the low performance memory portion, and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that those files could be stored in the another memory if there is not enough memory space in the low performance memory portion).
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses store the one or more pinned files in the first area; and move at least one of the one or more hot files stored in a first space in the first area based on determining there is insufficient storage space in the second area, to the second area based on determining there is insufficient storage space in the first area, and move at least one of the one or more pinned files into the first space (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52).
Regarding claim 6,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses determine whether no hot files are stored in the first area or whether there would be insufficient storage space available to store the one or more pinned files in the first area after moving the one or more hot files to the second area (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, no frequently modified file is stored in the low performance memory portion); and move at least one of the one or more cold files from a second space of the first area to the second area based on determining there is insufficient storage space available to store the one or more pinned files in the first area, and store the one or more pinned files in the second space (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that those files could be stored in the another memory if there is not enough memory space in the high performance memory portion).
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses wherein the one or more hot files comprise at least one of a temporary storage file or a cache file, and wherein the one or more cold files comprise at least one of a multimedia file or an application execution file (See Gupta: at least Fig. 3-4, and para 41, 50, and 56, the files or data elements could be cache file/page and execution files).
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses store the plurality of files in the first area, irrespective of attributes of the plurality of files, based on determining the available storage space in the first area exceeds the predetermined level; and store the one or more hot files in the second area based on determining the available storage space in the first area is less than the predetermined level (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81 and Torrant: at least Fig. 6, para 30, and 50-52, the frequently modified files are stored in the high performance memory portion, and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that those files could be stored in the another memory if there is
not enough memory space in the high performance memory portion).
Regarding claim 9,
the combination of Gupta, Wallman, Torrant, and Guo discloses wherein the plurality of write patterns comprise at least one of: file size, whether a file is modified (dirty page), a time (modification time) when the file was modified, a time interval (modification interval) at which the file was modified, a count (fsync) with which a system called the file, a size (chunk size) of a portion of the file being modified, an extension of the file, a directory name in which the file is stored, or whether a predetermined file system is used (See Gupta: at least Fig. 7, and para 54, 59, 70, 73, 74, and 81, frequently modified files).
Regarding claims 11-19,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1-9, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1-9, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
07/23/2026
Prosecution Insights