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 .
1. Claims 1 – 21 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended as filed on 05/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (Patent No. US 11,487,788 B1), hereinafter Gupta, in view of Hartlaub et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0311293 A1), hereinafter Hart, in view of Ahmed et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0289330 A1), hereinafter Ahmed, and in further view of Wang et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0048386 A1), hereinafter Wang.
2. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Gupta taught a method comprising: receiving, by a network-based data system, a query related to metadata (2:42-49), the metadata being stored in a storage location using version stamps (2:36-42), each of the version stamps comprising a register value corresponding to an order the metadata was written into the storage location (2:36-42, where the cloud storage location is a distributed storage location); scanning, by at least one hardware processor, the storage location to retrieve relevant metadata for the query to generate a first data set (6:1-11. See also: 7:11-14); recording a maximum version stamp value in the first data set (2:36-42, where the absolute version number is a maximum version number that is pointing to the next register location under broadest reasonable interpretation); scanning the storage location to retrieve relevant metadata for the query using the maximum version stamp value as a lower bound to generate a second data Set (2:36-42, where the absolute version number is a maximum version number that is pointing to the next register location under broadest reasonable interpretation. See also: 11:35-48); combining the first data set and the second data set to generate a combined data set (15:32-40. See also: 11:4-8); and outputting the combined data set as a result of the query (6:1-11).
However, while Gupta did teach a cloud storage system, which is (de facto) a distributed storage system (4:18-21), in order to maintain a more compact prosecution, it will be argued that Gupta did not explicitly state that the storage system comprised a first storage location and a second storage. On the other hand, Hart did teach that the storage system comprised a first storage location and a second storage (0054). Both of the systems of Gupta and Hart are directed towards managing data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, to utilize a specified separate storage location, as taught by Hart, in order to efficiently operate a cloud network.
However, Gupta did not explicitly state that the data sets were combined without de-duplication. On the other hand, Ahmed did teach that the data sets were combined without de-duplication (0039, where union-all doesn’t use de-duplication). Both of the systems of Gupta and Ahmed are directed towards managing data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, to utilize a specific data combination techniques that were taught by Ahmed, in order to maintain complete data sets where needed.
However, Gupta did not explicitly state that the first data set was comprising metadata having version stamp values less than or equal to the maximum version stamp value, the second data set was comprising metadata having version stamp values greater than the maximum stamp value, and using the version stamp values, the combined data set comprises all metadata in the first data set and the second data set without removing metadata from the first data set and the second data set based on content. On the other hand, Wang did teach that the first data set was comprising metadata having version stamp values less than or equal to the maximum version stamp value, the second data set was comprising metadata having version stamp values greater than the maximum stamp value, and using the version stamp values, the combined data set comprises all metadata in the first data set and the second data set without removing metadata from the first data set and the second data set based on content (0328, where the V1-Vn are the version numbers, the L490A is the metadata, and the maximum number is, at least, the one previous to the current under broadest reasonable interpretation). Both of the systems of Gupta and Wang are directed towards managing data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, to utilize a specific data combination techniques that were taught by Wang, in order to maintain complete data sets where needed.
3. As for claims 2, 9, and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Gupta taught wherein metadata written into the first storage location is ingested into the second storage location (1:26-39, the copy command under broadest reasonable interpretation).
4. As for claims 5, 12, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Gupta taught wherein the combining is performed using a union-all command (16:60-67).
5. As for claims 6, 13, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Hart taught scanning the second storage location for a first set of permission data; scanning the first storage location for a second set of permission data using the maximum version stamp value; and combining the first set of permission data and the second set of permission data to generate a combined set of permission data (0074, the permissions based on the stored indexes).
6. As for claims 7, 14, and 21, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6, 13, and 20 (respectively). In addition, Hart taught determining a role of a user who issued the query; and filtering out at least one row in the combined data set based on the role of the user and the combined set of permission data (0074, where the users, to which the permissions are related, can be seen in 0005).
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, in view of Hart, in view of Ahmed, in view of Wang, and in further view of Whitesage (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2002/0010686 A1), hereinafter White.
7. As for claims 3, 10, and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). However, Gupta did not explicitly state wherein the first data set is provided in a first format and the second data set is provided in a second format, the method further comprising: converting the first data set into a common format; and converting the second data set into the common format, wherein the combined data set is in the common format. On the other hand, White did teach wherein the first data set is provided in a first format and the second data set is provided in a second format, the method further comprising: converting the first data set into a common format; and converting the second data set into the common format, wherein the combined data set is in the common format (0061 & 0087). Both of the systems of Gupta and White are directed towards managing databases and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta to utilize different types of databases with different types of data formats, as taught by White, in order to ensure that the system is running optimally.
8. As for claims 4, 11, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Gupta taught wherein the second storage location is a database stored in a plurality of storage devices in the data system (2:36-42, the cloud). However, Gupta did not explicitly state wherein the first storage location is a transactional database in the data system. On the other hand, White did teach wherein the first storage location is a transactional database in the data system (0180). Both of the systems of Gupta and White are directed towards managing databases and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta to utilize different types of databases with different types of data formats, as taught by White, in order to ensure that the system is running optimally.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights