DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted August 12, 2025 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “tracking time spent on security checks at each navigation step; identifying a performance issue based on the tracked time spent for each navigation step and the tracked time on security checks; each navigation step including an operator to fetch objects up to a bounded limit in a respective memory space designated for the navigation step, the respective memory space being flushed in between select navigation steps.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to “tracking time spent on security checks at each navigation step; identifying a performance issue based on the tracked time spent for each navigation step and the tracked time on security checks,” see at least Bhattacharjee and Longsine.
For example, Bhattacharjee [0039-0040] describes a monitoring tool for measuring time spent on various operations; Longsine [0034-0035] discloses that a particular amount of “processing time” is required for intrusion handling, i.e. security checks. The combination of Bhattacharjee’s monitoring tool for collecting time statistics for various operations and Longsine’s identifying of how long a security operation takes place produces the combination for the above argued features.
As to “each navigation step including an operator to fetch objects up to a bounded limit in a respective memory space designated for the navigation step, the respective memory space being flushed in between select navigation steps,” see at least Bannon.
To begin, the Examiner would like to point out that the flushing in the claim occurs once, “flushed in between select navigation steps.” For example, a step dealing with fetching objects, may be interpreted as writing objects into memory because fetching means retrieving data and storing it somewhere. That means the memory is flushed after a particular step, such as a step where an object was fetched (i.e. written). Bannon [0029-0032] discloses flushing memory based on threshold write operations.
As such, Banon discloses the above argued feature.
No further specific arguments are provided.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,840. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘840 Patent anticipate the instant claims.
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, 4-5, 9, 12-13, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0193050) in view of Bannon et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0047332) further in view of Bhattacharjee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0262633) and further in view of Longsine et al (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0179485).
Claims 1, 9 and 17: Olson discloses a method, a machine storage medium and a system comprising:
performing a plurality of navigation steps in a stepwise fashion in response to a show command [0080]. [See at least requesting a report.]
each navigation step to fetch objects from a respective layer of a plurality of layers in a metadata database [Fig. 2, 0078]. [See at least providing a report to a user from layers of a database structure.]
each navigation step corresponding to a different layer in a structure of the metadata database [Fig. 2, 0078].
each navigation step including an operator to fetch objects up to a bounded limit in a respective memory space designated for the navigation step [Fig. 2, 0078]. [See at least providing a report to a user from layers of a database structure. The bounded limit is based on query limitations.]
compiling dependency information associated with objects from a last layer of the plurality of layers [Fig. 2, 0078-0080]. [Dependency information is based at least on the layer that is being accessed, including a last layer that is accessed based on query limitations.]
generating results for the show command based on the compiled dependency information [Fig. 2, 0078-0080].
Olson alone does not explicitly disclose the respective memory space being flushed in between select navigation steps.
However, Bannon [0029, 0032] discloses flushing memory based on threshold write operations (i.e. between select navigation steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Bannon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to free up memory.
Olson alone also does not explicitly disclose tracking time spent for each navigation step; and identifying a performance issue based on the tracked time spent for each navigation step.
However, Bhattacharjee [0039-0040] discloses measuring time spent retrieving data at various stages and identifying performance based on at least time statistics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Bhattacharjee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to further evaluate metrics such as time to be able to improve performance.
Olson alone also does not explicitly disclose tracking time spent on security checks at each navigation step, and that the performance issue is based on the tracked time on security checks.
However, Bhattacharjee [0039-0040] describes a monitoring tool for measuring time spent on various operations; Longsine [0034-0035] discloses that a particular amount of “processing time” is required for intrusion handling, i.e. security checks. The combination of Bhattacharjee’s monitoring tool for collecting time statistics for various operations and Longsine’s identifying of how long a security operation takes place produces the combination for the above argued features.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Bhattacharjee and Longsine. One would have been motivated to do so in order to further evaluate metrics such as time to be able to improve performance.
Claims 4, 12 and 20: Olson as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 9 and 17 above, but Olson alone does not explicitly disclose tracking time spent for compiling dependency information.
However, Olson [Fig. 2, 0078-0080] discloses compiling dependency information, which is a data retrieval operation and Bhattacharjee [0039-0040] discloses measuring time spent retrieving data at various stages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Bhattacharjee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to further evaluate metrics such as time to be able to improve performance.
Claims 5, 13 and 21: Olson as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 9 and 17 above and Bhattacharjee [0039-0041], for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein metrics including the tracked time spent for each navigation step is collected in a centralized location.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0193050) in view of Bannon et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0047332) further in view of Bhattacharjee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0262633) and further in view of Andruss et al (US Patent 7,854,006).
Claims 3, 11 and 19: Olson as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 9 and 17 above, but Olson alone does not explicitly disclose tracking number of items in security checks at each navigation step, wherein the performance issue is identified based on the tracked number of items in the security checks.
However, Andruss (Col 2 ln 43-62 and Col 3ln 10-29) identifying which items get scanned (i.e. items that are tracked) and determining that the scan performance is degraded.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Andruss. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify how to improve performance.
Claims 6, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0193050) in view of Bannon et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0047332) further in view of Bhattacharjee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0262633) and further in view of Sion et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0087600).
Claims 6, 14 and 22: Olson as modified discloses Olson discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 9 and 17 and Olson [Fig. 2, 0078-0080] further discloses wherein the dependency information associated a respective layer is fetched in a single transaction with the metadata database. But Olson alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the dependency information associated a respective layer is fetched in a single transaction with the metadata database using bulk reads.
However, Sion [0326] discloses using a single bulk read operation to fetch data from a database.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Sion. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process data faster.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0193050) in view of Bannon et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0047332) further in view of Bhattacharjee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0262633) and further in view of Fuller (US Patent 8,260,769).
Claims 7, 15 and 23: Olson as modified discloses Olson discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 9 and 17 and Olson [Fig. 2, 0078-0080] further discloses fetching data in response to a request to display data, but Olson alone does not explicitly disclose wherein execution of the show command is stopped before all objects corresponding to the show command in a first layer are fetched, and a bookmark is placed indicating where the show command was stopped.
However, Fuller (Col 8 ln 37-46) discloses stopping retrieval of query information (such as at least to display data as in Olson Fig. 2) and inserting a bookmark in order to resume data retrieval data at a later point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olson with Fuller. One would have been motivated to do so in order to resume data retrieval at a point convenient for a user instead of rerunning the full data retrieval command.
Claims 8, 16 and 24: Olson as modified discloses the method, the medium and the system of Claims 7, 15 and 23 and Fuller (Col 8 ln 37-46), for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the show command is a first show command, and the method further comprising: executing a second show command based on the bookmark.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163