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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 7/10/24. Claim 15 is canceled; therefore, claims 1-14 and 16-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colgrove et al., US Pub. No.20130097380.
As to claim 1, Colgrove discloses a method comprising performing by an access computer:
receiving, over a network, a first access request for accessing a resource, the first access request including various fields of data and generating a first fingerprint using a first value of a first field of the first access request and storing the first fingerprint (saved fingerprint) and receiving a second access request, generating a second fingerprint (computed fingerprint) using a second value of the first field of the second access request (generating fingerprints of data associated with a write access to one of the data storage arrays 120a-120b may then be compared to fingerprints of data already stored in a storage subsystem 170, see [0047]);
comparing the first fingerprint to the second fingerprint to determine a possible match of the second access request to the first access request (a calculated fingerprint for the given data component may be compared to fingerprints of data components stored in one or more of the data storage arrays 120a-120b to see any match, see [0056]);
accessing, using another fingerprint or value of another field of the first or second access request, a database (170 fig.1) to retrieve missing data (confirming matching fingerprint) in the first access request or the second access request, wherein the database stores fingerprints associated with other fields of data that is assigned by the access computer to facilitate access to resources and comparing the missing data to a corresponding field of the other access request to confirm a match (The data component fingerprint 506 may access one or more tables within deduplication table 510. If no matching fingerprint is found, then the corresponding data may be scheduled to be written to one of the storage devices 176a-176m. If a matching fingerprint is found, then the data corresponding to the matching fingerprint may be retrieved from storage and compared to the received write data. If the data is determined to be identical, then a new link for the stored data is created, see [0090]).
As to claim 2, Colgrove discloses the first fingerprint is a dynamic fingerprint (see [0056]).
As to claim 3, Colgrove discloses generating the first fingerprint further comprises: normalizing the first value of the first field of the first access request and hashing the normalized first value of the first field of the first access request (using hash function to calculate fingerprints, see [0056]).
As to claim 4, Colgrove discloses the first fingerprint comprises values from more than one field of the first access request, and wherein generating the first fingerprint further comprises: concatenating the values from the more than one field of the first access request (a calculated fingerprint for the given data component may be compared to fingerprints of data components stored in one or more of the data storage arrays, see [0056] to [0057]).
As to claim 7, Colgrove discloses the database stores data of the first access request and the second access request in reference to a resource provider identifier (the physical index 626 may generally be an identifier (e.g., a physical pointer or address) used to identify a given physical location within the storage devices 176a-176m, see [0072]).
As to claim 10, Colgrove discloses before comparing the first fingerprint to the second fingerprint to determine the possible match of the second access request to the first access request: comparing, a resource provider identifier in the first access request to a resource provider identifier in the second access request (finding a match, see [0056] to [0057]).
As to claim 12, Colgrove discloses wherein the match is determined to be a retry
Attempt (different fingerprint tables may be used at different times to attempt to identify stored data components for which a newly-written component is a duplicate, see [0053]).
As to claim 13, Colgrove discloses the missing data in the first access request or the second access request is a first plurality of fingerprints, and wherein the corresponding field of the other access request is a second plurality of fingerprints (fingerprints processing , see [0056]).
As to claim 14, Colgrove discloses the resource is a physical resource (see [0072]).
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1, 3, 10 and 13 respectively.
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) 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgrove as in above and in view of Xu et al., US Pub. No.20170141926.
As to claims 5 and 6, Colgrove’s teachings still applied as in item 3 above. Colgrove does not specifically disclose wherein one of the first or second access request comprises a tokenized credential, and the other access request comprises a non-tokenized credential and wherein the database stores static fingerprints associated with other fields of data that is assigned by the access computer to facilitate access to resources. However, Xu discloses wherein one of the first or second access request comprises a tokenized credential, and the other access request comprises a non-tokenized credential and wherein the database stores static fingerprints associated with other fields of data that is assigned by the access computer to facilitate access to resources (user credentials may be verified against the stored user credentials to determine if there is a match. Upon successful authentication of the user credentials an authorization access token may be generated, see [0163] to [0164]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Xu’s teachings into the computer system of Colgrove to authorize data access because it would have configured to allow the user to authenticate directly with an authentication service of the service provider using the user's credentials with the service provider (see Xu’s [0160]).
As to claim 8, 9 and 11, Xu further discloses wherein the value of another field of the first or second access request used to access the database to retrieve missing data in the first access request or the second access request is a token identifier, the missing data is a static fingerprint. the first access request comprises a tokenized credential, and the second access request comprises a non-tokenized credential, and wherein generating the second fingerprint comprises hashing the non-tokenized credential using a hash function that is used to tokenize the tokenized credential (user credentials may be verified against the stored user credentials to determine if there is a match. Upon successful authentication of the user credentials an authorization access token may be generated and using a has function to generate credentials, see [0056], [0163] to [0164]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Xu’s teachings into the computer system of Colgrove to authorize data access because it would have configured to allow the user to authenticate directly with an authentication service of the service provider using the user's credentials with the service provider (see Xu’s [0160]).
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 11 and 5 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
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, Umar Cheema, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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 ttps://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.
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458