DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/470,928 filed on January 12, 2026, has been entered. Claims 5, 6, 11 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 12, 15, 20 and 22 are currently amended. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-22 are pending and are examined.
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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to Claim 22 has overcome the objection to the claims for minor informalities set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 10, 2025. The objection to the claims for minor informalities is hereby withdrawn.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, set forth in this Office Action.
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, 2, 12, 13, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0014346 A1, hereby “Goyal”, in further view of Ito et al., Pub. No. US 2009/0177751 A1, hereby “Ito”, in further view of Chen et al., Pub. No. US 2017/0270117 A1, hereby “Chen”, and in further view of Lapukhov et al., Pub. No. US 2017/0324618 A1, hereby “Lapukhov”.
Regarding Claim 1, Goyal discloses “A method (Goyal fig. 20 and paragraphs 26 and 414: a method for communicating groups of events to a message bus) comprising:
storing, by a processing device of an enterprise messaging system comprising a plurality of nodes, a message payload in a data store, wherein the data store is shared by the plurality of nodes, wherein the message payload is extracted from a message based on a size of the message payload exceeding a size of a metadata item associated with the message (Goyal figs. 2B and 20 and paragraphs 139-140 and 417-421: ingestor 252 stores a message payload in data store 258 and replaces the message payload in the message with a location reference to the message payload, i.e., a metadata item, in response to determining that the message size exceeds a threshold, such that the size of the message to be placed in message queue 256 can be smaller);
sending, to a first node of the plurality of nodes, the metadata item associated with the message (Goyal figs. 2B and 20 and paragraphs 139-140, 145 and 417-421 and 426: indexer 206 receives the message with the location reference from message bus 254)”.
However, while Goyal discloses deleting the message payload from the data store after receiving an acknowledgement from each subscriber (Goyal paragraphs 137, 161 and 434-435), Goyal does not explicitly disclose “responsive to determining that a key corresponding to the message payload has been used by the first node to retrieve the message payload from the data store, decrementing a removal counter associated with the key; and
responsive to determining that the removal counter satisfies a removal threshold criterion, removing the message payload from the data store...”
In a related field of endeavor, Ito discloses “responsive to determining that a key corresponding to the message payload has been used by the first node to retrieve the message payload from the data store, decrementing a removal counter associated with the key (Ito fig. 1D and paragraphs 146-148, 154 and 158: server 20 records the number of times a decryption key is used to decrypt an attachment in a counter area – while not explicitly stated, recording the number of times a decryption key is used by decrementing a counter associated with the decryption key is inferred); and
responsive to determining that the removal counter satisfies a removal threshold criterion, removing the message payload from the data store (Ito paragraphs 158: the decryption key is invalidated when the number of decryption operations recorded in the counter area meets a predetermined threshold value - while not explicitly stated, deletion of the attachment upon the invalidation of the associated decryption key is inferred).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal to invalidate the location reference to the message payload when the location reference is used a threshold number of times as taught by Ito because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (deletion of an attachment responsive to invalidation of a decryption key used to access the attachment) for another (deletion of a message payload responsive to receiving acknowledgement from each subscriber) to obtain predictable and desirable results (deletion of the message payload from the data store responsive to invalidation of the location reference). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Ito suggests deleting the attachment from storage when the number of decryption operations recorded in the counter area meets a predetermined threshold value (Ito paragraph 158), the combination of Goyal and Ito does not explicitly disclose “wherein removing the message payload from the data store further comprises:
placing an identifier of the message payload in a removal candidate pool;
selecting, based on a removal policy, a first message payload from the removal candidate pool, wherein the removal policy comprises a least recently used (LRU) rule or a least frequently used (LFU) rule; and
removing the first message payload from the data store.”
In a related field of endeavor, Chen discloses a process for deleting a file from a data storage system (Chen fig. 3 and paragraphs 49-54) that comprises adding a file identifier to a deletion list, i.e., a removal candidate pool (Chen figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph 51: data management system 110 adds a file identifier, e.g., a file name, of a file to be deleted to the deletion list), selecting a file from the deletion list using a selection policy (Chen figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph 54: while not explicitly stated, the first file in the deletion list is necessarily determined or selected) and deleting the first file indicated in the deletion list from the data storage system (Chen figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph 54: data management system 110 deletes the first file indicated in the deletion list from data storage system 130).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, to delete the message payload from the data store by adding an identifier of the message payload to a deletion list and then deleting message payloads indicated in the deletion list as taught by Chen because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (deleting files indicated by a deletion list from a data storage system) to known devices and/or methods (a method for communicating groups of events to a message bus) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (deletion of message payloads from the data store). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Chen discloses deleting the first file indicated in a deletion list comprising identifiers of files to be deleted from a database, i.e., based on a first-in-first-out (FIFO) removal policy (Chen paragraph 54), the combination of Goyal, Ito and Chen does not explicitly disclose “wherein the removal policy comprises a least recently used (LRU) rule or a least frequently used (LFU) rule”.
In the same field of endeavor, Lapukhov discloses an architecture comprising a message bus and a database that stores the content of messages exchanged over the message bus (Lapukhov fig. 3 and paragraph 31) wherein the database may employ eviction logic that identifies content for eviction based on a least recently used (LRU) policy (Lapukhov fig. 5 and paragraphs 42-43: “In step 506, if eviction is required, a cache algorithm can be used to identify content that is least recently used (LRU) by applications as candidates for the eviction. In step 508, the LRU content is removed from the database 28.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito and Chen, to delete message payloads identified by the deletion list based on a least recently used (LRU) policy as taught by Lapukhov because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a first-in-first-out (FIFO) removal policy) for another (a least recently used (LRU) eviction policy) to obtain predictable and desirable results (freeing up space in the data store). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Ito discloses “receiving, from the first node, a request to retrieve the message payload (Ito fig. 1D and paragraph 144: receiver terminal 40 transmits a request to decrypt an attachment to application server 20, the request including a mail ID or an attachment ID);
identifying the key corresponding to the message payload (Ito figs. 1D and 13 and paragraphs 146-148: application server 20 looks up a decryption key corresponding to the attachment using the mail ID or attachment ID); and
sending the key to the first node (Ito fig. 1D and paragraphs 148 and 151: application server 20 sends the decryption key to receiver terminal 40).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal to invalidate the location reference to the message payload when the location reference is used a threshold number of times as taught by Ito for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Goyal discloses “A system (Goyal figs. 1 and 2B and paragraphs 80-82 and 115: data intake and query system 108) comprising:
a memory device (Goyal figs. 1 and 2B and paragraphs 81, 104, 108-109, 115 and 121: one or more memories storing instructions);
a processing device operatively coupled to the memory device... (Goyal figs. 1 and 2B and paragraphs 81, 104, 108-109, 115 and 121: one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories)”.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 2.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Goyal discloses “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when accessed by a processing device... (Goyal figs. 1 and 2B and paragraphs 81, 104, 108-109, 115, 121 and 566: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor)”.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Goyal discloses “wherein the enterprise messaging system further comprises a shared bus (Goyal fig. 2B and paragraphs 134-137: message queue 256 of message bus 254), and wherein sending the metadata item associated with the message to the first node of the plurality of nodes comprises:
sending, to the first node of the plurality of nodes, the metadata item associated with the message via the shared bus (Goyal fig. 2B and 20 and paragraphs 139-140 and 420: ingestor 252 communicates the message including the location reference to indexer 206 via message queue 256).”
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov in further view of Grube et al., Pub. No. US 2011/0161680 A1, hereby “Grube”.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Ito discloses storing the decryption key in a table (Ito paragraphs 146-148), the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov does not explicitly disclose “compressing the key.”
In a related field of endeavor, Grube discloses “compressing the key (Grube paragraph 147: key info compressor 300 compresses key A associated with data object 156).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, Chen and Lapukhov, to compress the location reference to the message payload as taught by Grube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine compressing the location reference to the message payload to reduce the memory storage requirements (Grube paragraph 147).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen, Lapukhov and Grube discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3.
Additionally, Ito, discloses “... storing, in a data structure, the key corresponding to the message payload and the removal counter associated with the key (Ito figs. 5 and 13 and paragraphs 146, 148 and 158: the number of times the decryption key is used is recorded in a counter area of security information database 22).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal to invalidate the location reference to the message payload when the location reference is used a threshold number of times as taught by Ito for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
However, while Ito discloses storing the decryption key and the associated counter in a table (Ito paragraphs 148 and 158), the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov does not explicitly disclose “subsequent to compressing the key, storing, in a data structure, the key corresponding to the message payload and the removal counter associated with the key (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Grube discloses storing a compressed key (Grube paragraphs 147, 153 and 155-156: the compressed key is stored in dispersed storage network (DSN) memory for later retrieval and decompression).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, Chen and Lapukhov, to compress the location reference to the message payload as taught by Grube for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov in further view of Hughes et al., Pub. No. US 2006/0136446 A1, hereby “Hughes”.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goyal discloses deleting the message payload from the data store after receiving an acknowledgement from each subscriber (Goyal paragraphs 137, 161 and 434-435), the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov does not explicitly disclose “wherein removing the message payload from the data store is performed responsive to detecting a triggering event, wherein the triggering event comprises at least one of: a resource of the data store satisfying a resource threshold criterion, or a queue associated with the data store satisfying a queue threshold criterion (emphasis added)”.
In a related field of endeavor, Hughes discloses an automated cleanup process that monitors the available free space of a storage device and deletes one or more files from the storage device automatically when the amount of available free space falls below a threshold amount (Hughes fig. 4 and paragraphs 53-57: one or more files are identified for deletion and deleted when the monitored free space available on a storage device is less than a threshold amount).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, Chen and Lapukhov, to delete one or more message payloads from the data store when the free space of the data store is less than a threshold amount as taught by Hughes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine deleting one or more message payloads from the datastore when the free space of the data store is less than a threshold amount to ensure space is available for storage of new message payloads (Hughes paragraph 4).
Claims 8-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov in further view of Kuriya et al., Pub. No. US 2007/0083613 A1, hereby “Kuriya”.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goyal discloses using the location reference to obtain the message payload from the data store (Goyal paragraph 140), the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov does not explicitly disclose “determining that the key corresponding to the message payload has been borrowed by a second node of the plurality of nodes; and
responsive to determining that the key has been borrowed by the second node, decrementing a borrow counter associated with the key.”
In a related field of endeavor, Kuriya discloses maintaining a content management table comprising entries comprising a content key and a permitted check-out count, i.e., a borrow counter, for each content item stored by a content database (Kuriya fig. 7 and paragraphs 259-261: content management table 162 lists content IDs, content keys usage conditions including a permitted check-out counts for content stored by content database 155) and further discloses decrementing the permitted check-out count associated with a content item when the content item is checked-out from the content database, i.e., accessed by another node (Kuriya figs. 7 and 14 and paragraphs 268 and 314-317: in response to receiving the content check-out request, content management program 154 decrements the permitted check-out count associated with the content by one).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, Chen and Lapukhov, to maintain a permitted check-out count associated with the message payload stored in the data store as taught by Kuriya because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (maintaining a permitted check-out count for content stored in a database) to known devices and/or methods (a method for communicating groups of events to a message bus) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (limiting the number of concurrent accesses of the message payload). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goyal discloses using the location reference to obtain the message payload from the data store (Goyal paragraph 140), the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov does not explicitly disclose “determining that the key corresponding to the message payload has been returned by a second node of the plurality of nodes; and
responsive to determining that the key has been returned by the second node, incrementing a borrow counter associated with the key.”
In a related field of endeavor, Kuriya discloses maintaining a content management table comprising entries comprising a content key and a permitted check-out count, i.e., a borrow counter for each content item stored by a content database (Kuriya fig. 7 and paragraphs 259-261: content management table 162 lists content IDs, content keys usage conditions including a permitted check-out counts for content stored by content database 155) and further discloses incrementing the permitted check-out count associated with a content item when the content item is checked back in to the content database, i.e., access by another node is ended (Kuriya figs. 7 and 17 and paragraphs 269 and 322-325: in response to receiving the content check-in request, content management program 154 increments the permitted check-out count associated with the content by one).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, Chen and Lapukhov, to maintain a permitted check-out count associated with the message payload stored in the data store as taught by Kuriya for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goyal discloses using the location reference to obtain the message payload from the data store (Goyal paragraph 140), and Ito suggests deleting the attachment from storage when the number of decryption operations recorded in the counter area meets a predetermined threshold value (Ito paragraph 158), the combination of Goyal, Ito, Chen and Lapukhov does not explicitly disclose “responsive to determining that the removal counter does not satisfy the removal threshold criterion and that a borrow counter associated with the key satisfies a borrow threshold criterion, rendering the key unavailable.”
In a related field of endeavor, Kuriya discloses maintaining a content management table comprising entries comprising a content key and a permitted check-out count, i.e., a borrow counter for each content item stored by a content database (Kuriya fig. 7 and paragraphs 259-261: content management table 162 lists content IDs, content keys usage conditions including a permitted check-out counts for content stored by content database 155) and further discloses denying access to the content stored in a content database when the permitted check-out count associated with the content is zero (Kuriya paragraphs 10 and 266: content management program 154 does not send the content when the permitted check-out count associated with the content is '0').”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Goyal, as modified by Ito, Chen and Lapukhov, to maintain a permitted check-out count associated with the message payload stored in the data store as taught by Kuriya for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 8.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 9.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the cited prior art discloses identifying and deleting one or more files from a storage device when monitored free space available on the storage device is less than a threshold amount, i.e., in response to a triggering event comprising a resource of the data store satisfying a resource threshold criterion (Hughes et al., US 2006/0136446 A1), the cited prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, wherein the triggering event comprises the queue associated with the data store satisfying a queue threshold criterion, wherein the queue threshold criterion comprises a quantity of message payloads waiting in the queue exceeding a threshold quantity.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights