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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 06/29/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments were fully considered and are mood in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 14 and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 18 of copending Application No. 18530139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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, 3, 7, 9, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane et al (hereinafter Rane) US Publication No 20230350700 in view of Shilane et al (hereinafter Shilane) US Publication No 20190243702.
As per claim 1, Rane teaches:
A computer-implemented method for modifying snapshots of datasets distributed over a network, comprising:
receiving a request to modify a record in a snapshot of a dataset, wherein the snapshot comprises a compressed plurality of records, wherein the snapshot is one of a plurality of snapshot replicas for replicated across a plurality of applications, and wherein each snapshot replica of the plurality of snapshot replicas is co-located in memory associated with each application with one of the plurality of applications
(Fig. 2A and paragraphs [0010], [0032], [0039], [0048], [0055], [0061] and [0116])
wherein portion of the memory is accessed in response to a read request associated with the record that is received prior to the snapshot being modified in accordance with the request;
(Paragraphs [0010], [0039], [0049], [0096])
modifying the snapshot in accordance with the request;
(Paragraphs [0010], [0039], [0049], [0059], [0091], [0096] and [0098])
and transmitting the modified snapshot to the plurality of applications, wherein the snapshot at each of the plurality of applications is replaced with the modified snapshot.
(Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0010], [0039], [0049], [0059], [0091], [0096] and [0098])
Rane does not explicitly teach and wherein an application of the plurality of applications accesses a buffer of the plurality of buffers to receive and store the entry in a portion of memory separate from the dataset, however in analogous art of data replication, Shilane teaches:
duplicating an entry comprising information associated with the request across a plurality of buffers,
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0150], wherein the queue is the buffer according to paragraph [0103] of the instant specification)
wherein each buffer tracks modification requests associated with a snapshot replica of the plurality of snapshot replicas, and wherein an application of the plurality of applications accesses a buffer of the plurality of buffers to receive and store the entry in a portion of memory separate from the dataset,
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072] [0081], [0124] and [0148]-[0150] and [0163], wherein the controller/message queue maintaining a change log is the buffer according to paragraph [0103] of the instant specification)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane by incorporating the teaching of Shilane into the method of Rane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Shilane into the system of Rane for the purpose of tracking record change and ensuring data consistency.
As per claim 3, Rane and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request to modify the record includes at least one of adding, modifying, deleting or conditionally updating the record.
(Paragraph [0119])( Shilane)
As per claim 7, Rane and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request to modify the record is received as a flat record.
(Abstract and paragraph [0040]-[0041]) and [0070])( Shilane)
As per claim 9, Rane and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying the snapshot and transmitting the modified snapshot to the plurality of applications is performed over periodic intervals.
(Paragraph [0009] and [0059])( Rane)
As per claim 13, Rane and Shilane teach:
wherein the plurality of applications is associated with a content streaming platform.
(Paragraph [0092])(Rane)
Claims 14 and 17 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims respectively corresponding to method claims 1 and 3 and they rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 3.
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 15 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 13 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 13.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane and Shilane in view of Ackaouy et al (hereinafter Ackaouy) US Patent No 7191290.
As per claim 2, Rane and Shilane teach content streaming but do not explicitly teach dataset comprises metadata describing one or more characteristics of video content,
wherein the dataset comprises metadata describing one or more characteristics of video content.
(Abstract and Column 16, lines 53-64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Ackaouy by incorporating the teaching of Ackaouy into the method of Rane and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Ackaouy into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of managing snapshot object and providing information about cached records.
Claim 16 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 2 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claims 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane and Shilane in view of Das et al (hereinafter Das) US Publication No. 20220164311.
As per claim 4, Rane and Shilane do not explicitly teach portion of memory comprises a hash table of updates to records in the snapshot that have not been reflected in the plurality of records included in the snapshot, however in analogous art content management, Bach teaches:
portion of memory comprises a hash table of updates to records in the snapshot that have not been reflected in compressed the plurality of records included in the snapshot.
(Paragraph [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Das by incorporating the teaching of Das into the method of Rane and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Das into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of managing snapshot creation and data deduplication.
As per claim 5, Rane and Shilane and Das teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the hash table is indexed based on unique identifiers of records in the hash table.
(Paragraph [0040])(Das)
Claim 18 is non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 4 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane and Shilane in view of Decker et al (hereinafter Decker) US Publication No. 20180336128.
As per claim 6, Rane and Shilane do not explicitly teach prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot, however in analogous art of content management, Decker teaches:
prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot.
(Paragraphs [0021] and [0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Decker by incorporating the teaching of Decker into the method of Rane and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Decker into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of indexing content changes.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kucherov and Shilane in view of Decker et al (hereinafter Decker) US Publication No. 20180336128.
As per claim 8, Rane and Shilane do not explicitly teach prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot, however in analogous art of content management, Decker teaches:
prior to transmitting the modified snapshot, tagging the modified snapshot with an offset value indicating that the record associated with the entry has been updated in the snapshot,
(Paragraphs [0021] and [0052])
wherein the offset value is used by the plurality of applications to determine that the entry in the portion of memory should be deleted.
(Paragraphs [0035] and [0056] and [0072])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Decker by incorporating the teaching of Decker into the method of Kucherov and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Decker into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of indexing content changes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane and Shilane in view of Kinney et al (hereinafter Kinney) US Patent No. 11868324.
As per claim 10, Rane and Shilane teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein duplicating the entry comprises: creating a log entry associated with the request;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0080]-[0083], [0096], [0117] and [0150])( Shilane)
pushing the log entry to a message queue;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0080]-[0083], [0096], [0117] and [0150])( Shilane)
duplicating the entry across the plurality of buffers;
(Paragraphs [0070], [0072], [0150])(Shilane)
Rane and Shilane do not explicitly teach waiting for an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers; and responsive to an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers, designating the log entry as committed, however in analogous art of content management, Kenney teaches:
waiting for an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers; and responsive to an acknowledgment from each of the plurality of buffers, designating the log entry as committed.
(Column 4, lines 5-14 and column 12, lines 66-67 and column 13, lines 1-9 and column 18, lines 16-44)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Kinney by incorporating the teaching of Kinney into the method of Rane and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Kinney into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of providing data integrity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane and Shilane in view of Bathia et al (hereinafter Bathia) US Publication No. 20230224377.
As per claim 11, Rane and Shilane do not explicitly teach message queue comprises a fixed-size double-ended queue, however in analogous art of content management, Bathla teaches:
message queue comprises a fixed-size double-ended queue.
(Paragraphs [0080]-[0082])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Bathia by incorporating the teaching of Bathia into the method of Rane and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Bathia into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of managing queuing actions.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rane and Shilane in view of Drysdale et al (hereinafter Drysdale) US Publication No. 20180095750.
As per claim 12, Rane and Shilane do not explicitly teach each of the plurality of buffers comprises a circular array of fixed size, however in analogous art of content management, Drysdale teaches:
each of the plurality of buffers comprises a circular array of fixed size.
(Paragraphs [0081] and [0092])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Rane and Shilane and Drysdale by incorporating the teaching of Drysdale into the method of Rane and Shilane. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Drysdale into the system of Rane and Shilane for the purpose of managing content manipulation across buffers.
Claim 20 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 12 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 5:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner s supervisor, Kerzhner, Aleksandr can be reached at 5712702760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights