DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on July 02, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented to examination.
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on July 02, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated October 03, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Interpretation — Contingent Limitations
Claims 1–7 recite method steps that are contingent upon the outcome of prior determining steps (e.g., “determining that the update event is a partial update event …, and in response:” and “determining that the object … includes all required intents, and in response:”). Under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential), and MPEP § 2111.04(II), a method claim need not perform a contingent step when the condition precedent is not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 1–7 therefore encompasses instances in which the recited conditions are not satisfied and the associated “in response” steps are not performed.
In contrast, the corresponding information handling system claims 8–14 and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 15–20 must be capable of performing each recited operation, because the recited structure (processor, memory media, and instructions) must be present and configured to perform every claimed function regardless of the contingency. This interpretation is applied throughout the rejections set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites An information handling system comprising a processor having access to memory media storing instructions executable by the processor to perform operations, comprising:, redundantly using the transitional term “comprising” twice. Appropriate correction is suggested (e.g., “… to perform operations comprising:”). Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 9-14 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and similar for claims 8 and 15) recites the limitation “determining that the object, stored at a storage device and corresponding to the update event, includes all required intents…” in lines 5-6. The term all required intents is a coined term whose scope is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining which “intents” are, or are not, “required.” The specification equates the phrase only with the object being “complete” ([0035]) or being “a ‘full’ object stored by the storage device” ([0037]), which does not identify the “intents” themselves or how many or which of them are “required.” Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 2 (and similar for claims 9 and 16) recites the limitation “…does not include all required intents…” in lines 2-3, which is indefinite for the same reason above. Clarification of what constitutes the “required intents” and the condition under which an object “includes” them is required.
Claims 9-14 recites The computer-implemented method of claim; however, claim 8 is directed to An information handling system, not a method. The recitation “The computer-implemented method” therefore lacks antecedent basis and renders the statutory category of claims 9–14 unclear, particularly because the bodies of these claims recite the operations further including, consistent with the operations performed by the system of claim 8. For purposes of examination, claims 9–14 are treated as depending from the information handling system of claim 8.
Claims 16–20 are rejected for the same reason above: each recites The computer-implemented method of claim; however, claim 15 is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable medium, not a method. Appropriate correction is required (e.g., “The information handling system of claim 8, …” for claims 9–14, and “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, …” for claims 16–20).
Claims 2, 9, and 16, each recites the object, stored at a storage device, using the indefinite article “a” where a storage device has already been introduced in parent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. It is therefore unclear whether the recited “a storage device” is the same as, or different from, the previously recited storage device. The recitation “the storage device” is suggested.
Claims 6, 13, and 20, each recites comparing a timestamp of the update event with respective timestamps of other partial update events, using the indefinite article “a” where a timestamp associated with the partial update event has already been introduced in parent claims 1, 8, and 15. Because the claims establish that the update event “is a partial update event”, it is unclear whether “a timestamp of the update event” refers to the previously recited timestamp or introduces a new, different timestamp. The recitation “the timestamp” is suggested.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 7 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis below follows the two-step Alice/Mayo framework as articulated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), and MPEP § 2106. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are analyzed together, as each recites substantially the same limitations directed to the same abstract idea, differing only in statutory form.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claims 1–7 recite a method (process); claims 8–14 recite an information handling system (machine); and claims 15–20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture). Therefore, “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes. Step 1 is satisfied and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas — concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion — as set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The following recited limitations set forth the abstract idea:
(a) determining that the update event is a partial update event that includes only dynamic data — a person can mentally observe an update and evaluate/judge whether it is a partial update containing only changeable data;
(b) determining that the object, stored at a storage device and corresponding to the update event, includes all required intents — a person can mentally evaluate and judge whether an existing item of information is complete; and
(c) merging the partial update event with the object such that the object includes the partial update event, including the dynamic data of the partial update event — a person can mentally combine or associate the update information with the existing information.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite a process that, but for the recitation of generic computer components, covers performance in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (observation, evaluation, and judgment). Nothing in the limitations requires anything other than mental steps. Therefore, “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?” Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea within the Mental Processes grouping.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Integration into a Practical Application
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea:
Additional element 1 — “a computer-implemented” method, “a processor,” “memory media,” “instructions,” “one or more computers,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a storage device” — generic computer components recited at a high level of generality and used merely as tools to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Additional element 2 — “receiving an update event for an object” — insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Additional element 3 — “updating the storage device to include the partial update event for the object, including a timestamp associated with the partial update event” — insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data storage) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
These additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, do not apply the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, and do not effect a transformation of a particular article. Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 8, and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception, as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a processor,” “memory media,” “instructions,” “one or more computers,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a storage device” are generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of receiving the update event and updating/storing the update and its timestamp constitute mere data gathering and data storage, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, after further evaluation the claim as a whole doesn’t improve any function of a computer or any other technology or technical field. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 (and similarly claims 9 and 16) adds the limitation that the object does not include all required intents and that the storage device is updated including marking the partial update event as dirty. The determining step is a further mental process (evaluation and judgment); marking a record as “dirty” is a generic data-flagging operation constituting insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitation neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more.
Claim 3 (and similarly for claims 10 and 17) adds the limitation determining that the update event is a full update event that includes immutable data and the dynamic data and updating the object stored at the storage device based on the full update event. The determining step is a further mental process (evaluation and judgment); the updating is mere data storage (extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitation does not integrate the exception nor add significantly more.
Claim 4 (and similarly for claims 11 and 18) adds the limitation determining that the object was previously stored at the storage device and updating the previously stored object — a further mental evaluation together with generic data storage. Claim 5 (and similarly claims 12 and 19) adds creating the object at the storage device — generic data storage. Neither integrates the exception nor adds significantly more.
Claim 6 (and similarly for claims 13 and 20) adds identifying other partial update events, identifying a respective timestamp, comparing a timestamp of the update event with respective timestamps of other partial update events, and discarding the partial update events with respective timestamps older than the timestamp of the update event. The identifying and comparing steps are further mental processes (observation, comparison, and judgment); discarding is a generic data operation. Claim 7 (and similarly for claim 14) adds merging the partial update events with timestamps newer than the timestamp of the update event with the object — a further mental combination of information together with generic data storage. None of these limitations integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 are likewise directed to the abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0078942, hereinafter Cai).
With respect to claim 1, Cai teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising (Cai, paragraphs [0014]–[0015] and FIG. 1; a computer processor performing a partial update of a hierarchically structured document stored as records in a relational database): receiving an update event for an object (Cai, paragraph [0015]: “the process starts by a computer processor receiving an update XQuery expression (step 102)”; paragraph [0004]: “An expression that specifies one or more updates to be applied to the document is received”; the received update XQuery expression is the claimed update event, and the hierarchically structured document/records stored in the database is the claimed object). determining that the update event is a partial update event that includes only dynamic data, and in response: (Cai, paragraph [0014]: “implementing partial updates of hierarchical documents stored as records in relational databases”; paragraph [0069]: “The partial updates allows the user to change an existing document, by inserting, deleting, or replacing parts of the document, as opposed to having to change the entire document”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and consistent with Applicant’s specification paragraph [0029] (defining dynamic data as “data that changes frequently”), the recited “only dynamic data” reads on the changed parts of the document that Cai’s partial update modifies — i.e., only the portion of data being changed, as opposed to the entire object). determining that the object, stored at a storage device and corresponding to the update event, includes all required intents, and in response: (Cai, paragraph [0016]: “The process then checks if an update target has been found (step 106)… If an update target is found, the base table row of the XML column is updated with a new document version (step 108)”; consistent with Applicant’s specification paragraph [0035] (the object “‘exists’ in the storage device … as ‘complete’”) and paragraph [0037] (“includes all required intents. That is, … is a ‘full’ object stored by the storage device”), the recited determination that the stored object “includes all required intents” reads on Cai’s determination that the update target is found in the stored document — i.e., that a complete/existing document (object) corresponding to the update is stored in the database;) updating the storage device to include the partial update event for the object, including a timestamp associated with the partial update event (Cai, paragraph [0016]: “the base table row of the XML column is updated with a new document version (step 108)”; paragraph [0033]: “each row of the base table (201) contains an XML indicator column (204), which contains update timestamps”; paragraph [0035]: “A start timestamp (311) for a start of a validity period for the changed XML record … are stored in each changed XML record (step 403)”; the database storing the updated record together with its associated update/start timestamp is the claimed updating the storage device to include the partial update event, including a timestamp) and merging the partial update event with the object such that the object includes the partial update event, including the dynamic data of the partial update event (Cai, paragraph [0036]: “The post-update document can subsequently be stitched together from all records with the current version, as indicated by the respective timestamps (306-307, 311-312), including both pre-existing unchanged records and newly updated records”; paragraph [0063]: “a query for the after-update document will locate the latest version, which contains the new records from the partial update and the unchanged original records”; the stitching/combining of the newly updated records with the pre-existing document is the claimed merging such that the object includes the partial update event, including its changed (dynamic) data). With respect to claim 8, claim 8 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1, differing only in that claim 8 recites an information handling system comprising a processor and memory media storing instructions rather than a computer-implemented method. Cai teaches An information handling system comprising a processor having access to memory media storing instructions executable by the processor to perform operations (Cai, paragraph [0022]: “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus”; paragraph [0017]: “aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product”). The remaining limitations of claim 8 are met by Cai for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 above (Cai, paragraphs [0004], [0014]–[0016], [0033], [0035]–[0036], [0063]).
With respect to claim 15, claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1, differing only in that claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions rather than a computer-implemented method. Cai teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers which, upon such execution, cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Cai, paragraph [0017]: “aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon”; paragraph [0018]: “a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system” — i.e., a non-transitory (tangible) medium). The remaining limitations of claim 15 are met by Cai for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 above (Cai, paragraphs [0004], [0014]–[0016], [0033], [0035]–[0036], [0063]).
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0078942, hereinafter Cai) in view of Jas (US Pub. No. 2023/0198675, hereinafter Jas).
With respect to claim 2, Cai teaches determining that the object, stored at a storage device, corresponding to the update event does not include all required intents, and in response: updating the storage device to include the partial update event for the object, [[including marking the partial update event as dirty.]] (Cai, paragraph [0016]: “The process then checks if an update target has been found (step 106). If no update target is found, the process ends”; and, per claim 1, the storage device being updated to include the partial update event; consistent with claim 1, the determination that the stored object “does not include all required intents” reads on Cai’s determination that no complete update target/object is found).
Cai is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Jas teaches marking the partial update event as dirty (Jas, paragraph [0029]: “the telemetry data analyzer may append an error flag to the event record in the event record data structure to indicate that the context value of the event record is likely inaccurate”; paragraph [0013]: “detect and/or indicate that one or more event records is erroneous to permit the event records to be addressed (e.g., flagged, erased, corrected…)”; the appending of an error flag to the stored record to indicate it is inaccurate/erroneous — so that it is addressed and not relied upon — is the claimed marking the partial update event as dirty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai’s method of updating a stored object with a partial update, when the object is determined not to include all required intents, to include marking the partial update event as dirty via an error flag as taught by Jas, in order to indicate that the incomplete record is likely inaccurate and should not be relied upon or queried until resolved, thereby conserving the computing and network resources otherwise expended in relying on inaccurate or erroneous records (Jas, paragraph [0013]).
With respect to claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 recite limitations similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cai in view of Jas for the same reasons set forth for claim 2 above.
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0078942, hereinafter Cai) in view of Ford et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0355897, hereinafter Ford).
With respect to claim 3, Cai teaches updating the object stored at the storage device based on the full update event (Cai, paragraph [0068]: “when an XML document or hierarchically structured document is updated, the entire old document is typically deleted and a new document is inserted into the database table”; Cai updates the stored object based on a full, whole-document update). Cai is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Ford teaches determining that the update event is a full update event that includes immutable data and the dynamic data (Ford, paragraph [0016]: “The data-object attribute specifies whether a given data object is a dynamic data object or a static data object. A dynamic data object for which a change can be implemented without rebooting, while rebooting is required to implement a changed static data object”; paragraph [0017] (data volume set to “static”) and paragraph [0018] (data volume set to “dynamic”); Ford’s data/firmware update includes both static and dynamic data objects, where, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with Applicant’s specification paragraph [0029] (immutable data is “data that does not change, or rarely changes”), Ford’s static data object reads on the claimed immutable data and Ford’s dynamic data object reads on the claimed dynamic data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai’s method of updating a stored object to include determining that an update event is a full update event that includes immutable data and dynamic data as taught by Ford, in order to appropriately handle updates that carry both rarely-changing (static/immutable) data and frequently-changing (dynamic) data, so that each change is applied and used correctly according to the type of data being updated (Ford, paragraphs [0009], [0016]). With respect to claim 4, Cai teaches wherein updating the object further includes determining that the object was previously stored at the storage device and updating the previously stored object (Cai, paragraph [0016]: “determine which old database records should be replaced”; paragraph [0065]: “the End_Time for the Old Rec2 has been set to t2, and a New Rec2 has been created”; Cai determines that the object was previously stored (old records exist) and updates the previously stored object by expiring/replacing the old records with the updated version). With respect to claim 5, Cai teaches wherein updating the object further includes creating the object at the storage device (Cai, paragraph [0063]: “new records included in a pending insert array are inserted into the XML tablespace with a start timestamp of the new version”; paragraph [0016]: “they both generate new database records”; Cai creates the object — the new records for the new version of the document — at the storage device).
With respect to claims 10 and 17, claims 10 and 17 recite limitations similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cai in view of Ford for the same reasons set forth for claim 3 above.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 recite limitations similar to those of claim 4 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cai in view of Ford for the same reasons set forth for claim 4 above.
With respect to claims 12 and 19, claims 12 and 19 recite limitations similar to those of claim 5 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cai in view of Ford for the same reasons set forth for claim 5 above.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0078942, hereinafter Cai) in view of Ford et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0355897, hereinafter Ford) and further in view of Takebe (US Pub. No. 2012/0191679, hereinafter Takebe). With respect to claim 6, Cai teaches identifying other partial update events associated with the object that are stored at the storage device (Cai, paragraph [0063]: “the data records in the XML tablespace are searched to find all records within the subtree”; Cai identifies other stored records/updates associated with the object). identifying a respective timestamp of each of the partial update events (Cai, paragraph [0033]: “The start and end timestamps (306-307) indicate the validity time period for the XML record referenced by the index entry”; each stored record has a respective start/end timestamp). Cai in view of Ford is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, Takebe teaches:
comparing a timestamp of the update event with respective timestamps of other partial update events (Takebe, paragraph [0095]: “the update committing part 138 compares the commitment time in the updated record with the commitment time in the reference-generation record”; the commitment time being a timestamp, Takebe compares the timestamp of the update with those of other records) and discarding the partial update events with respective timestamps older than the timestamp of the update event (Takebe, paragraph [0039]: “OverWrite, which carries out an overwrite with a result having a later commitment time”; paragraph [0095]: “If the commitment time in the reference-generation record is earlier, the update committing part 138 sets the value stored in the updated record”; by overwriting with the later-timestamped result, Takebe discards the update(s) having older/earlier timestamps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cai in view of Ford to include comparing the timestamp of the update event with the respective timestamps of other stored update events and discarding those with older timestamps as taught by Takebe, in order to resolve update conflicts by retaining the most recent data and discarding stale or superseded updates, thereby maintaining data consistency and correctness (Takebe, paragraphs [0039], [0095]). With respect to claim 7, Cai teaches merging the partial update events with timestamps newer than the timestamp of the update event with the object ((Cai, paragraph [0036]: “The post-update document can subsequently be stitched together from all records with the current version, as indicated by the respective timestamps”; paragraph [0063]: “a query for the after-update document will locate the latest version, which contains the new records from the partial update”; Cai merges/stitches the newer, current-version records — i.e., those having timestamps newer than the superseded records — into the object).
With respect to claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 recite limitations similar to those of claim 6 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cai in view of Ford and Takebe for the same reasons set forth for claim 6 above.
With respect to claim 14, claim 14 recites limitations similar to those of claim 7 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cai in view of Ford and Takebe for the same reasons set forth for claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gordon et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0092871) Techniques for obfuscating and deploying digital assets (e.g., mobile applications) are provided to mitigate the risk of unauthorized disclosure. An asset can be received that is to be deployed to a plurality of mobile devices, each of the mobile devices associated with a corresponding account having account attributes. A deployment group of one or more mobile devices for deploying the asset can be identified based on a set of one or more obfuscation parameters, comprising account attributes shared among the one or more mobile devices within the deployment group. A customized obfuscation scheme to be applied to the asset can be determined based at least in part on the set of obfuscation parameters. The customized obfuscation scheme can be applied to the asset to generate an obfuscated asset. The obfuscated asset can be transmitted and/or updated over a network to the one or more mobile devices within the deployment group. (see abstract).
Bursley et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0294665) A method for handling data within a storage area network (SAN), the method comprising receiving by an information handling system, the data from a component of the SAN, the data associated with at least one configuration of the component, converting the data into processed data and providing the processed data to a database. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights