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 Amendment filed on 5/8/26. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are presented for examination.
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) 1-4, 7, 10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Colgrove et al., US Pub. No.20130097380 in view of Satyan, US Pub. No.20100019124.
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]).
Colgrove does not specifically discloses deriving data missing from a request. However, in a similar network environment, Satyan discloses deriving data missing from a request (computing the missing "Y" axis data, and carefully determining where the cutoff is between the fingerprint data and the non-fingerprint data is using image analysis, the fingerprint may be reconstructed, see [0095]). 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 Satyan’s teachings into the computer system of Colgrove to control data information because it would have enabled the partial fingerprint data to be used more effectively and thus produced a larger and more useful fingerprint (see Satyan’s [0096]).
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(s) 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Colgrove and Satyan 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. Neither Colgrove nor Satyan specifically 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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/8/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Satyan. US Pub. No.20100019124.
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 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
Prosecution Insights