DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on September 03, 2025, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 09/03/2025. In this action claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Derryberry et al. (US Pub. No. 20210389883) and Lalsangi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220413765) and Van Oortmerssen et al. (US Pub. No. 20150293962) in further view of Sirajuddin et al. (US Pub. No. 20200104387). The Lalsangi et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of s receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device and an upstream application a request to write a first data object to an object database.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 9, applicant argues “Accordingly, the claims provide a practical application rooted in improving computering and networking technology. Simply put, computers are improved by implementing the processes recited in the claims. The above elements are not abstract and provide additional technological improvements to computing and networking technology by improving read operations in an object database.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Applicant argues that the claim comprises statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a Mathematical Concept & Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); such as a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to compress a data object for storage, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concept &Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Reading operations are well-known routine and conventional. And compressing and serializing data does not improve the functioning of a system. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 1, 10, 18 There is no support for “compressing, in an application layer, the serialized first data object into a format that can be stored in the object database, wherein the compressing in the application layer reduces network latency and data object footprint in responding to the request to write ….”.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10 and 12-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim(s) 1, 10, 18 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mathematical Concepts & Mental Process enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recites the following limitations directed towards Mathematical Concepts & Mental Process:
responsive to a determination that the size of the first data object exceeds the predetermined threshold, (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by evaluating a threshold size of a data object), by the computing device: serializing the first data object using a binary serializer to convert the first data object to a byte array (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of converting a data objects format);
comparing, by the computing device, a size of the first data object to a predetermined threshold (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by comparing a size of an object to a threshold);
compressing, in an application layer, the serialized first data object into a format that can be stored in the object database, wherein the compressing in the application layer reduces network latency and data object footprint in responding to the request to write (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to compress a data object);
responsive to determining that the second data read from the object database is a compressed byte array, by the computing device, deserializing the second data object into a plain old class object (POCO) entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to deserializing an object).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 10, and 18:
one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums configured to store instructions (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions stored on the one or more non- transitory machine-readable mediums (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function);
receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device and an upstream application a request to write a first data object to an object database (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering); and
saving the compressed serialized first data object within the object database (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to saving object data);
responsive to receiving a request from one of the client device and the upstream application to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to reading object data);
sending to the one of a client device and an upstream application the compressed byte array in a response to the request to read the second data object (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to transmitting an array).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the compressing the serialized first data object includes using an LZ4 algorithm to compress the serialized first data object (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to compress a data object).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transferring a large object.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the compressing the serialized first data object includes using a Zstandard (ZSTD) algorithm to compress the serialized first data object (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to compress a data object).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transferring a large object.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5, 13, and 19:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
extracting one or more fields which are queryable from the first data object (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by evaluating a threshold size of a data object).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
saving the one or more queryable fields with the compressed serialized first data object within the object database (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 14:
Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
saving, by the computing device, the first data object within the object database (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 16:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
responsive to a determination that the second data object read from the object database is not a compressed byte array, by the computing device: deserializing the second data object into a plain old class object (POCO) entity (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of converting a data objects format);
serializing the POCO entity into a JSON object (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of converting a data objects format).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
sending the JSON object in a response to the request to read the second data object (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 17:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
compressing the JSON object and sending the compressed JSON object in the response to the request to read the second data object (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to compress a data object);
responsive to a determination that the second data object read from the object database is a compressed byte array: deserializing the second data object into a plain old class object (POCO) entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of using an algorithm to compress a data object).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
responsive to receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading the second data object from the object database (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function);
sending the compressed byte array in a response to the request to read the second data object (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Derryberry et al. (US Pub. No. 20210389883) and Lalsangi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220413765) and Van Oortmerssen et al. (US Pub. No. 20150293962) in further view of Sirajuddin et al. (US Pub. No. 20200104387).
With respect to claim 1, Derryberry et al. teaches a method comprising:
comparing, by the computing device, a size of the first data object to a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 163 discloses checks the size of the unit to be added, and if it is smaller than a configurable threshold);
responsive to a determination that the size of the first data exceeds the predetermined threshold (Paragraph 40 discloses an object can be split so that different portions of the object may be deduplicated in parallel with each other. This can be especially beneficial in cases where the object is very large), by the computing device:
saving the compressed serialized first data object within the object database (Paragraph 82 storing metadata and data that allow it to interoperate with different database and object storage interfaces, making COSVS portable across cloud computing vendors). Derryberry et al. does not disclose receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application.
However, Lalsangi et al. teaches receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application
a request to write a first data object to an object database (Paragraph 62 discloses a first client 502, a second client 504, and/or any other number of clients that may be part of an application layer 501. In an embodiment, the network storage appliance 508 may comprise a block interface configured to provide the clients with block-based access to block storage, such as where the first client 502 can read and write according to fix block sizes and Paragraph 63 discloses variable sized data blobs and metadata received from multiple clients); and
compressing, in an application layer, the serialized first data object into a format that can be stored in the object database (Paragraph 78 discloses the storage layer 512 may manage microservices 518 that are configured to perform various storage functionality for key value stores, such as compression, deduplication), wherein the compressing in the application layer reduces network latency and data object footprint in responding to the request to write (Paragraph 34 discloses storage controller functions may provide various storage functionality for the locally attached storage, such as compression, deduplication, backup and restore functionality, etc. The storage controller functions may store data within the locally attached storage as files, blocks of data, key values of a key value store, databases, etc and Paragraph 66 discloses the configuration policy specifying an attribute that latency is to be below a particular threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. with Lalsangi et al. to include receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Lalsangi et al. Paragraph(s) 3-19.
Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al does not disclose serializing the first data object.
However, Van Oortmerssen et al. teaches serializing the first data object using a binary serializer to convert the first data object to a byte array (Paragraph 21 discloses serialization techniques can represent hierarchical data in a flat binary serialization buffer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. with Van Oortmerssen et al. to include serializing the first data object. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Van Oortmerssen et al. Paragraph(s) 8-11.
Derryberry et al. discloses responsive to receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (Paragraph 36 discloses the storage appliance 170 may allow a point-in-time version of a virtual machine to be mounted and allow the server 160 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine). Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. does not disclose deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object.
However, Sirajuddin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (Paragraph 36 discloses the storage appliance 170 may allow a point-in-time version of a virtual machine to be mounted and allow the server 160 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine). Derryberry et al. as modified by Van Oortmerssen et al. does not disclose deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object.
However, Sirajuddin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to a determination that the second data object read from the object database is a compressed byte array (Paragraph 6 discloses Data is stored as bit arrays and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion), by the computing device:
deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object (Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion); and
sending the compressed byte array in a response to the request to read the second data object (Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. with Sirajuddin et al. to include deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Sirajuddin et al. Paragraph(s) 2-24. In addition, all references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor: data transferring.
The Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Derryberry et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the compressing the serialized first data object includes using an LZ4 algorithm to compress the serialized first data object (Paragraph 66 discloses compression (e.g., using a lossless data compression algorithm such as LZ4 or LZ77)).
The Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 4, Derryberry et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the compressing the serialized first data object includes using a Zstandard (ZSTD) algorithm to compress the serialized first data object (Paragraph 66 discloses compression (e.g., using a lossless data compression algorithm such as LZ4 or LZ77)).
The Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 6, Derryberry et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to a determination that the first data object is not a large data object, saving, by the computing device, the first data object within the object database (Paragraph 123 discloses determining, ahead of time, how to split up data across users (for example, how many users will later be added, or how much data will they have in the future). To address such questions, examples of a COSVS may include a configuration that can be set on a per user basis that describes the backend to be used for each type of metadata or data operation).
The Derryberry et al. reference as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 8, Sirajuddin et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to a determination that the second data object read from the object database is not a compressed byte array, by the computing device:
deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity (Paragraph 52 discloses data-interchange format (such as, for example, XML, JSON, and/or the like) and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion);
serializing the POCO entity into a JSON object (Paragraph 52 discloses data-interchange format (such as, for example, XML, JSON, and/or the like) and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion); and
sending the JSON object in a response to the request to read the second data object (Paragraph 52 discloses data-interchange format (such as, for example, XML, JSON, and/or the like) and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 7 provided above, combining the Derryberry et al. reference and the Sirajuddin et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 8.
The Derryberry et al. reference as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 9, Sirajuddin et al. discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising, prior to sending the JSON object, compressing the JSON object and sending the compressed JSON object in the response to the request to read the second data object (Paragraph 52 discloses data-interchange format (such as, for example, XML, JSON, and/or the like) and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 8 provided above, combining the Derryberry et al. reference and the Sirajuddin et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Derryberry et al. teaches a computing device comprising:
one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums (Paragraph 269 discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium) configured to store instructions;
and
one or more processors (Paragraph 269 discloses a processor) configured to execute the instructions stored on the one or more
non-transitory machine-readable mediums, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to carry out a process comprising:
comparing, by the computing device, a size of the first data object to a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 163 discloses checks the size of the unit to be added, and if it is smaller than a configurable threshold);
responsive to a determination that the size of the first data exceeds the predetermined threshold (Paragraph 40 discloses an object can be split so that different portions of the object may be deduplicated in parallel with each other. This can be especially beneficial in cases where the object is very large), by the computing device:
saving the compressed serialized first data object within the object database (Paragraph 82 storing metadata and data that allow it to interoperate with different database and object storage interfaces, making COSVS portable across cloud computing vendors). Derryberry et al. does not disclose receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application.
However, Lalsangi et al. teaches receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application
a request to write a first data object to an object database (Paragraph 62 discloses a first client 502, a second client 504, and/or any other number of clients that may be part of an application layer 501. In an embodiment, the network storage appliance 508 may comprise a block interface configured to provide the clients with block-based access to block storage, such as where the first client 502 can read and write according to fix block sizes and Paragraph 63 discloses variable sized data blobs and metadata received from multiple clients); and
compressing, in an application layer, the serialized first data object into a format that can be stored in the object database (Paragraph 78 discloses the storage layer 512 may manage microservices 518 that are configured to perform various storage functionality for key value stores, such as compression, deduplication), wherein the compressing in the application layer reduces network latency and data object footprint in responding to the request to write (Paragraph 34 discloses storage controller functions may provide various storage functionality for the locally attached storage, such as compression, deduplication, backup and restore functionality, etc. The storage controller functions may store data within the locally attached storage as files, blocks of data, key values of a key value store, databases, etc and Paragraph 66 discloses the configuration policy specifying an attribute that latency is to be below a particular threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. with Lalsangi et al. to include receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Lalsangi et al. Paragraph(s) 3-19.
Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al does not disclose serializing the first data object.
However, Van Oortmerssen et al. teaches serializing the first data object using a binary serializer to convert the first data object to a byte array (Paragraph 21 discloses serialization techniques can represent hierarchical data in a flat binary serialization buffer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. with Van Oortmerssen et al. to include serializing the first data object. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Van Oortmerssen et al. Paragraph(s) 8-11.
Derryberry et al. discloses responsive to receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (Paragraph 36 discloses the storage appliance 170 may allow a point-in-time version of a virtual machine to be mounted and allow the server 160 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine). Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. does not disclose deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object.
However, Sirajuddin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (Paragraph 36 discloses the storage appliance 170 may allow a point-in-time version of a virtual machine to be mounted and allow the server 160 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine). Derryberry et al. as modified by Van Oortmerssen et al. does not disclose deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object.
However, Sirajuddin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to a determination that the second data object read from the object database is a compressed byte array (Paragraph 6 discloses Data is stored as bit arrays and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion), by the computing device:
deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object (Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion); and
sending the compressed byte array in a response to the request to read the second data object (Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. with Sirajuddin et al. to include deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Sirajuddin et al. Paragraph(s) 2-24. In addition, all references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor: data transferring.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
With respect to claim 18, Derryberry et al. teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium encoding instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause a process to be carried out, the process including:
comparing, by the computing device, a size of the first data object to a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 163 discloses checks the size of the unit to be added, and if it is smaller than a configurable threshold);
responsive to a determination that the size of the first data exceeds the predetermined threshold (Paragraph 40 discloses an object can be split so that different portions of the object may be deduplicated in parallel with each other. This can be especially beneficial in cases where the object is very large), by the computing device:
saving the compressed serialized first data object within the object database (Paragraph 82 storing metadata and data that allow it to interoperate with different database and object storage interfaces, making COSVS portable across cloud computing vendors). Derryberry et al. does not disclose receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application.
However, Lalsangi et al. teaches receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application
a request to write a first data object to an object database (Paragraph 62 discloses a first client 502, a second client 504, and/or any other number of clients that may be part of an application layer 501. In an embodiment, the network storage appliance 508 may comprise a block interface configured to provide the clients with block-based access to block storage, such as where the first client 502 can read and write according to fix block sizes and Paragraph 63 discloses variable sized data blobs and metadata received from multiple clients); and
compressing, in an application layer, the serialized first data object into a format that can be stored in the object database (Paragraph 78 discloses the storage layer 512 may manage microservices 518 that are configured to perform various storage functionality for key value stores, such as compression, deduplication), wherein the compressing in the application layer reduces network latency and data object footprint in responding to the request to write (Paragraph 34 discloses storage controller functions may provide various storage functionality for the locally attached storage, such as compression, deduplication, backup and restore functionality, etc. The storage controller functions may store data within the locally attached storage as files, blocks of data, key values of a key value store, databases, etc and Paragraph 66 discloses the configuration policy specifying an attribute that latency is to be below a particular threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. with Lalsangi et al. to include receiving, by a computing device, from one of a client device band an upstream application. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Lalsangi et al. Paragraph(s) 3-19.
Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al does not disclose serializing the first data object.
However, Van Oortmerssen et al. teaches serializing the first data object using a binary serializer to convert the first data object to a byte array (Paragraph 21 discloses serialization techniques can represent hierarchical data in a flat binary serialization buffer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. with Van Oortmerssen et al. to include serializing the first data object. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Van Oortmerssen et al. Paragraph(s) 8-11.
Derryberry et al. discloses responsive to receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (Paragraph 36 discloses the storage appliance 170 may allow a point-in-time version of a virtual machine to be mounted and allow the server 160 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine). Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. does not disclose deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object.
However, Sirajuddin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request to read a second data object from the object database, reading, by the computing device, the second data object from the object database (Paragraph 36 discloses the storage appliance 170 may allow a point-in-time version of a virtual machine to be mounted and allow the server 160 to read and/or modify data associated with the point-in-time version of the virtual machine). Derryberry et al. as modified by Van Oortmerssen et al. does not disclose deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object.
However, Sirajuddin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to a determination that the second data object read from the object database is a compressed byte array (Paragraph 6 discloses Data is stored as bit arrays and Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion), by the computing device:
deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object (Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion); and
sending the compressed byte array in a response to the request to read the second data object (Paragraph 54 discloses compressed blobs that can again be retrieved in any required format; dynamic storage and retrieval of data in compressed blobs; serialization, deserialization, and conversion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. with Sirajuddin et al. to include deserializing the second data object into a POCO entity which includes the compressed byte array, wherein the compressed byte array represents the second data object. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Sirajuddin et al. Paragraph(s) 2-24. In addition, all references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor: data transferring.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derryberry et al. (US Pub. No. 20210389883) and Lalsangi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220413765) and Van Oortmerssen et al. (US Pub. No. 20150293962) and Sirajuddin et al. (US Pub. No. 20200104387) in further view of further view of Isherwood Jr. et al. (US Pub. No. 20160154833).
The Derryberry et al. reference as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 5, Derryberry et al. as modified by Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. does not disclose extracting one or more fields which are queryable from the first data object.
However, Isherwood Jr et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to the determination that the first data object is a large data object, by the computing device:
extracting one or more fields which are queryable from the first data object (Paragraph 5 discloses extract a specific metadata field from the one or more objects); and
saving the one or more queryable fields with the compressed serialized first data object within the object database (Paragraph 119 discloses index it efficiently under a user-defined name with strong typing, and make that field multi-dimensionally query-able via a user interface and a programmatic query interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Derryberry et al. and Lalsangi et al. and Van Oortmerssen et al. and Sirajuddin et al. with Isherwood Jr. et al. to include saving the one or more queryable fields with the compressed serialized first data object within the object database. This would have facilitated improved performance in cloud environments. See Isherwood Jr et al. Paragraph(s) 2-10.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20210279354 is directed to LIVE DATA CONVERSION AND MIGRATION FOR DISTRIBUTED DATA OBJECT SYSTEMS [0123] Converting a data object by method 400 can involve not just changing the format data of the data object but also the user data of the data object. For example, conversion of data object by method 400 may encompass translating, transforming, compressing, decompressing, encrypting and/or unencrypting user data of the data object. Thus, data object conversion by method 400 can encompass changing just the format data of the data object or changing both the format data and the user data of the data object.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154