DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in consideration of the Applicant’s response on July 17, 2026. Claims 21, 29, and 37 are amended by the Applicant. Claims 21 – 40, where Claims 21, 29, and 37 are in independent form, are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot based on the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24 – 26, 28 – 30, 32 – 34, 36, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPub. 2018/0032706 (hereinafter “Fox”), in view of PGPub. 2019/0238520 (hereinafter “Espinosa”).
1. Regarding Claims 21, 29, and 37, Fox discloses of a system [Fig. 1 and 4; Para. 0039, 0041, 0124-128; bootstrapper implemented as a separate computer device within client system] comprising:
one or more processors [Para. 0127-128]; and
one or more memory located inside the sealed housing storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors [Para. 0127-128] to:
receiving an installation bundle, the installation bundle comprising a data extraction agent [Fig. 7; Para. 0106-119]
loading the data extraction agent based on the received installation bundle, after verification of the associated trust verification data [Fig. 7; Para. 0106-119];
retrieve an extraction job specification for the data extraction agent from an extraction job specification repository associated with the data recipient system [Fig. 1; Para. 0046, 0055, 0057, 0101; data extraction agent uses the relevant package, library, or configuration file specified in the received extraction job specification in order to crawl and/or extract data records from data sources];
using the extraction job specification, communicate to one or more client computing devices associated with a client system to extract data records from one or more data stores of the client system [Fig. 1; Para. 0046, 0055, 0057; data extraction agent uses the relevant package, library, or configuration file specified in the extraction job specification in order to crawl and/or extract data records from data sources].
Fox, however, does not specifically disclose that the installation bundle comprises associated trust verification data unique to the data extraction agent, the associated trust verification data comprising a returned certificate or of
Espinosa discloses a system and method for providing a device specific installation package [Abstract]. Espinosa further discloses that the device specific installation package comprises a self-signed platform certificate (installation bundle comprises associated trust verification data unique to the data extraction agent, the associated trust verification data comprising a returned certificate) that is verified before executing the installation script (verifying the installation bundle being associated with a data recipient system using the returned certificate in the associated trust verification data) [Fig. 7; Para. 0010, 0016, 0070, 0075]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Espinosa with Fox since both system deploy installation packages to remote devices. The combination would enable the receiving device to verify that the installation package was sent by the system that signed the package. The motivation to do so is to improve security by ensuring the package was sent by the correct system (obvious to one skilled in the art).
2. Regarding Claims 22 and 30, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 21 and 29. Fox further discloses of authenticating with the data recipient system, prior to receiving the installation bundle [Fig. 6; Para. 0092, 0095, 0097; a device within the client system sends a command including a unique URL including the restricted use token; deployment engine validates the restricted use token and can include in the server system (data recipient system); also establishes a secure channel, such as an HTTPS connection; deployment engine part of the server system].
3. Regarding Claims 24 and 32, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 21 and 29. Fox further discloses that the retrieving an extraction job specification includes polling the extraction job specification from the data recipient system via the data extraction agent [Fig. 1; Para. 0046, 0055, 0057, 0101; data extraction agent uses the relevant package, library, or configuration file specified in the received extraction job specification in order to crawl and/or extract data records from data sources].
4. Regarding Claims 25, 33, and 39, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 24 and 32 (Claim 39 combine limitations of Claims 32 and 33). Fox further discloses that the data extraction agent polls the data recipient system through a firewall device [Para. 0074; data extraction agent polls for new message request by the data record transformer].
5. Regarding Claims 26 and 34, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 25 and 33. Fox further discloses of:
receiving the one or more extracted data records [Para. 0038, 0057-58; data extraction agents crawl and/or extract data record from data sources; each data source may be any repository on one or more computing devices that contain data records]; and
sending the one or more extracted data records to the data recipient system through the firewall device [Fig .1; Para. 0043, 0058-59; once the data records are extracted, the data extraction agent sends the extracted data records to the data record transformer implemented on the server system].
6. Regarding Claims 28, 36, and 40, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 21, 29, and 37. Fox further discloses that the loading the data extraction agent includes loading the data extraction agent in a virtual environment via a containerized structure [Fig. 5; Para 0149-150].
Claims 23, 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox, in view of Espinosa, in further view of PGPub. 2012/0252405 (hereinafter “Lortz”).
7. Regarding Claims 23, 31, and 38, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 22, 30, and 37. Neither Fox nor Espinosa, however, specifically discloses that the bootstrapper authenticates with a data recipient system using a prestored security engine and using a shared registration secret uniquely associating the computing device with the data recipient system
Lortz discloses a system and method for establishing secure communications between a device and server based on a preexisting trust relationship [Abstract; Para. 0017]. Lortz further discloses that the device stores its digital certificate in secure memory to establish a trust relationship between the device and the server and supports SSL and TLS protocols (authenticates with a data recipient system using a prestored security engine and using a shared registration secret uniquely associating the computing device with the data recipient system) [Para. 0017]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Lortz with Fox since both systems establish a secure SSL/TLS communication channel to download software from a server to a device. The combination utilizes well-known protocols to communicate via HTTPS through the URI of the server. The motivation to do so is to provide mass adaptability and commercial viability (obvious to one skilled in the art).
Claims 27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox, in view of Espinosa, in further view of PGPub. 2020/0356674 (hereinafter “Nikolai”).
8. Regarding Claims 27 and 35, Fox, in view of Espinosa, discloses the limitations of Claims 21 and 29. Neither Fox nor Espinosa, however, specifically discloses of performing self-monitoring of errors and providing a report of the self-monitoring to the data recipient system for monitoring by the data recipient system.
Nikolai discloses a system and method for remotely testing devices [Abstract]. Nikolai further discloses of performing self-monitoring of errors and providing self-monitoring data back to the data recipient system for central monitoring by data recipient system [Para. 0064-65; audit data]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nokolai and Fox since they both have clients and servers exchange data between them. The combination would enable the servers in Fox to periodically monitor the status of the client devices within the client systems. The motivation to do so is to ensure client devices are working properly.
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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE K KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 5712727642. 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.
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
