DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 3/09/2026, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 1/07/2026. Applicant’s arguments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-22 are currently pending in the present Application. Claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Stead discloses a method for expeditiously de-archiving archived objects, the method comprising: configuring a first application programing interface (API) gateway between an auxiliary memory system and a repository of archived objects; See Paragraph [0085], (Disclosing a system for identifying, aggregating and accessing information from heterogeneous sources. FIG. 7 illustrates a system framework for organizing, aggregating and integrating structured and non-structure data from heterogeneous storage systems via an integration layer 700 comprising a low-level application programming interface (API) implemented to overlap from integration layer 700 to integrate information into information layer 701.) See Paragraph [0086], (Low-level API 720 is responsible for identifying and classifying data for information into a patient record by tagging and indexing data that is then stored in secure provider faults 720 securely, i.e. configuring a first application programing interface (API) gateway between an auxiliary memory system and a repository of archived objects;)
receiving, via an application, a first user request for a first archived object that is stored within the repository of archived objects; See Paragraphs [0100]-[0101], (FIG. 9 illustrates a structure of a regional databank that allows authorized users to request clinical information for a given patient via a record locator service 745, i.e. receiving, via an application, a first user request for a first archived object that is stored within the repository of archived objects;)
processing the first user request to retrieve the first archived object; See Paragraphs [0101], (An authorized user may request patient records such as a complete clinical chart that is assimilated and retrieved for the requested patient, i.e. processing the first user request to retrieve the first archived object;)
pushing, via the first API gateway, the first archived object into the auxiliary memory system that provides high-speed access to objects within the auxiliary memory system; See FIG. 11 & Paragraph [0136], (FIG. 11 illustrates a process of adding patient data into a regional databank and system framework as in FIGs. 7-9 wherein the method may include storing data including an associated version number and unique patient identifier as a patient record into a common, logical patient record and populating the patient record in a high-speed memory for use by one or more applications. Note [0085] wherein the system comprises an integration layer 700 including a low-level API 720 responsible for identifying and classifying data for incorporating into a patient record by tagging and indexing data, i.e. pushing, via the first API gateway, the first archived object into the auxiliary memory system that provides high-speed access to objects within the auxiliary memory system;)
and updating first metadata for the first archived object to store a first log of the retrieving and the pushing. See Paragraph [0136], (The system may update a transaction log to reflect all information changes and requests that occur in the regional database throughout performance of the method of FIG. 11, i.e. updating first metadata for the first archived object to store a first log of the retrieving and the pushing.)
Regarding independent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 15,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding independent claim 16,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006) in view of SORTUR et al. (US PGPUB No. 2023/0139720; Pub. Date: May 4, 2023) and Goodson et al. (US Patent No.: 10,025,599; Date of Patent: Jul. 17, 2018).
Regarding dependent claim 2,
As discussed above with claim 1, Stead discloses all of the limitations.
Stead further discloses the step of retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects; See Paragraph [0100], (FIG. 9 illustrates a structure of a regional databank comprising regional index 930 which provides pointers to secure vaults 920 containing clinical information for a given patient which may be assimilated and retrieved as requested by an authorized user, i.e. retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects;)
and storing the first set of attributes of the first user request as the first metadata. See Paragraph [0136], (The system may update a transaction log to reflect all information changes and requests that occur in the regional database throughout performance of the method of FIG. 11, i.e. storing the first set of attributes of the first user request (e.g. the requested information by the authorized user) as the first metadata (e.g. the transaction log reflects information changes and requests wherein authorized users may request subsets of patient information).)
Stead does not disclose the step of validating a first set of attributes of the first user request;
SORTUR discloses the step of validating a first set of attributes of the first user request; See Paragraphs [0017]-[0019], (Disclosing a system for product matching as part of searching a product catalog. The system may perform product matching based on a received search query by obtaining product data associated with a target product identified based on the search query, extracting an attribute from product data and validating the attribute in response to the attribute corresponding to defined mandatory attributes, i.e. validating a first set of attributes of the first user request;)
Stead and SORTUR are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead to include A. Paragraph [0129] of SORTUR discloses that the use of filters and constraints ensure that users obtain only the most relevant matches to search results. This represents an improvement in search processing because the filtering may provide the advantage of reducing noise in product matching results.
Stead-SORTUR does not disclose the step of notifying a user that the first user request has been received and is being processed;
Goodson discloses the step of notifying a user that the first user request has been received and is being processed; See Col. 15, line 51 - Col. 16, line 3, (Disclosing a system for establishing a connection between a driver and a connectivity device allowing the driver to submit requests for data from one or more data sources. Driver communication module 622 may receive a message from a driver 228 including a query and may send continuation messages including one or more of a query in progress token, a more results expected token, partial results of the query, complete results of the query, etc.) to the driver 228, i.e. notifying a user that the first user request has been received and is being processed;)
Stead, SORTUR and Goodson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead-SORTUR to include the method of providing users with updates regarding the status of a request as disclosed by Goodson. Col. 15, line 51 - Col. 16, line 3 of Goodson describe functionality for providing a user with progress information for their request based on messages delivered by the driver communication module 622 which allows a user to be made aware of the status of their request in the case wherein the system may be processing a large amount of requests and may also provide a user with partial results, etc.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006) in view of Brechbuhl et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0109897; Pub. Date: Apr. 15, 2021) and Attard et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0037000; Pub. Date: Feb. 4, 2021).
Regarding dependent claim 3,
As discussed above with claim 1, Stead discloses all of the limitations.
Stead does not disclose the step wherein the first user request comprises a first set of attributes that includes: a first identifier that is assigned to the first archived object, a first user identifier that is assigned to a first requestor of the first user request, a first email address that belongs to the first requestor, and a first timestamp of the first user request.
Brechbuhl discloses the step wherein the first user request comprises a first set of attributes that includes: a first identifier that is assigned to the first archived object, See Paragraph [0033], (Disclosing a system for transmitting document objects to a requesting user. An email client at a user device 215 may trigger a request for a document which includes a document object access indication 225, i.e. wherein the first user request comprises a first set of attributes that includes: a first identifier that is assigned to the first archived object,"
a first user identifier that is assigned to a first requestor of the first user request, See Paragraph [0033], (Document object access indication may include a user identifier corresponding to the user/device opening the document object 220, i.e. a first user identifier that is assigned to a first requestor of the first user request,"
a first email address that belongs to the first requestor, See Paragraph [0033], (Documents are distributed to user devices 215 via email by server 210 via an email client at the corresponding user device, i.e. a first email address that belongs to the first requestor (e.g. an email client of a user device is necessarily associated with a user email. A user request would be associated with an email of a user of the email client).)"
and a first timestamp of the first user request. See Paragraph [0033], (Document object access indication 225 includes a user identifier corresponding to the user/device opening the document object 220 and may include other metadata such as a timestamp of opening the document object 220, etc., i.e. a first timestamp of the first user request (e.g. a request to open a document via the email client).)
Stead and Brechbuhl are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead to include the process of retrieving data as disclosed by Brechbuhl. Paragraph [0041] of Brechbuhl discloses that user and attribute data may be stored as part of a high-performance clustered file storage system used for low latency retrieval and processing during object selection. These techniques support a reduction in delay between opening and displaying selected content which represents an improvement in user experience.
Stead-Brechbuhl does not disclose the step wherein the first user request comprises a first set of attributes that includes: a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects,
Attard disclose the step wherein the first user request comprises a first set of attributes that includes: a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects, See Paragraph [0013], (Disclosing a method of securing a group-based communication system configured to track interaction parameters relating to a user transmitting messages to the system via a client device.) See Paragraph [0048], (Interaction activity may be related to transmitting search queries to a group-based communication server wherein interaction parameters may identify a search term list as well as a data rate for the user to retrieve or export message content from the database, i.e. a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects.)
Stead-Brechbuhl and Attard are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, optimizing data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead-Brechbuhl to include the method of providing data rate information for retrieving information as disclosed by Attard. Paragraph [0014] of Attard discloses that the system may apply historical interaction parameters associated with a user profile which may reduce the frequency of interruptions of services provided by the communication which improves the user experience and increases the uptime for the user's access to said system.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006) in view of LANDMAN (US PGPUB No. 2021/0019283; Pub. Date: Jan. 21, 2021) and Shaw et al. (US PGPUB No. 2023/0058908; Pub. Date: Feb. 23, 2023).
Regarding dependent claim 4,
As discussed above with claim 1, Stead discloses all of the limitations.
Stead does not disclose the step wherein the updating comprises: determining a first turnaround time of the processing;
calculating a first monetary cost of at least one from among the processing and the pushing, wherein the first monetary cost is based on a first size of the first archived object and is also based on a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects;
and storing, as a first log within the first metadata, the first turnaround time, the first monetary cost and a second timestamp that indicates when the pushing operating has been completed.
LANDMAN discloses the step wherein the updating comprises: determining a first turnaround time of the processing; See Paragraph [0071], (Tracker 256 may track archived data by storing information including: a time when data is archived, a time when requested to be archived, an author of an archive request, a time when requested to be retrieved, a time when retrieved, an author of a retrieval request, etc., i.e. determining a first turnaround time of the processing (e.g. tracker 256 may maintain information indicating a time when data is archived).)
calculating a first monetary cost of at least one from among the processing and the pushing, wherein the first monetary cost is based on a first size of the first archived object, See Paragraph [0087], (Archival storage devices may have different accessibility speeds, different costs per storage (e.g., storage size), different rules regarding what or how data may be stored, etc.) See Paragraph [0094], (Storage confirmation information 370 may be received at server 320 which includes information including a cost to store data, i.e. calculating a first monetary cost of at least one from among the processing and the pushing (e.g. information regarding the storage cost of a record into archival storage reflects a cost of pushing). Note [0004] wherein a monetary cost of storing files at archival storage is based on the number of files or size of files stored, i.e. wherein the first monetary cost is based on a first size of the first archived object.)
and storing, as a first log within the first metadata, the first turnaround time, See Paragraph [0071], (Tracker 256 may track archived data by storing information including: a time when data is archived, a time when requested to be archived, an author of an archive request, a time when requested to be retrieved, a time when retrieved, an author of a retrieval request, etc., i.e. storing, as a first log within the first metadata, the first turnaround time (e.g. tracker 256 may maintain information indicating a time when data is archived).)
the first monetary cost, See Paragraph [0094], (Server 320 may update metadata 346 to include an archive ID associated with stored files or other information including a cost to store data. Note [0071] wherein tracker 256 is configured to track one or more metadata by storing information indicative of archived data, i.e. storing as a first log within the first metadata, the first monetary cost (e.g. tracker 256 may store information about archived data including cost information).)
and a second timestamp that indicates when the pushing operating has been completed. See Paragraph [0071], (Tracker 256 may track archived data by storing information including: a time when data is archived, a time when requested to be archived, an author of an archive request, a time when requested to be retrieved, a time when retrieved, an author of a retrieval request, etc., i.e. a second timestamp that indicates when the pushing operating has been completed (e.g. tracker maintains information relating to the time when an archived record is retrieved).)
Stead-LANDMAN does not disclose the step wherein the first monetary cost is also based on a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects;
Shaw discloses a first monetary cost based on a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects; See Paragraph [0066], (Disclosing a system for specifying one or more rules for archiving files from a source storage location to a target storage location. The system may mnage a plurality of storage classes 131 corresponding to levels of file retrieval speed and storage costs wherein higher costs correspond to higher retrieval speed storage classes, i.e. wherein the first monetary cost is based on a first desired tier of retrieval for retrieving the first archived object from the repository of archived objects;)
The examiner notes that LANDMAN discloses a monetary cost of processing a record based on a storage cost and Shaw discloses a monetary cost of processing a record based on levels of file retrieval speed. Therefore, both metrics are known in the art to be associated with determining a monetary cost of processing a file record. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore know that both metrics could be utilized both separately and in combination in order to determine a monetary cost.
Stead, LANDMAN and Shaw are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data storage operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead-LANDMAN to include the method of managing archived data according to monetary storage costs as disclosed by Shaw. Paragraph [0072] of Shaw discloses that the system may evaluate files in order to accurately assign storage classes to incoming files which allows the system to more efficiently distribute storage and computing resources.
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 4, Stead-LANDMAN-Shaw discloses all of the limitations.
Shaw further discloses the step wherein the first desired tier of retrieval comprises: a desired data rate for at least one from among the retrieving and downloading a retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system; and a desired turnaround time for the retrieving. See Paragraph [0066], (Disclosing a system for specifying one or more rules for archiving files from a source storage location to a target storage location. The system may mange a plurality of storage classes 131 corresponding to levels of file retrieval speed and storage costs wherein higher costs correspond to higher retrieval speed storage classes, i.e. wherein the first desired tier of retrieval comprises: a desired data rate for at least one from among the retrieving and downloading a retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system (e.g. an element of the storage class of a record includes a level of file retrieval speed).)
Regarding dependent claim 13,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006) in view of Nazir et al. (US PGPUB No. 2022/0188803; Pub. Date: Jun. 16, 2022) and Seigle et al. (US Patent No.: 9,223,789; Date of Patent: Dec. 29, 2015).
Regarding dependent claim 6,
As discussed above with claim 1, Stead discloses all of the limitations.
Stead further discloses the step of configuring a first API between the application and the auxiliary memory system; See Paragraph [0085], (FIG. 7 illustrates a system framework for organizing, aggregating and integrating structured and non-structure data from heterogeneous storage systems via an integration layer 700 comprising a low-level application programming interface (API) implemented to overlap from integration layer 700 to integrate information into information layer 701.) See Paragraph [0084], (The system framework includes a user access and application layer 702 operatively coupled with information services 701 which obtains information from integration layer 700 which contains the low-level API 720, i.e. configuring a first API between the application and the auxiliary memory system;)
Stead does not disclose the step of notifying a user of the first log;
Nazir discloses the step of notifying a user of the first log; See Paragraph [0056], (Disclosing a system for processing interactions between applications across a plurality of devices. The system may process transactions such as payment transactions by creating a transaction log. A notification that a transaction is completed and that the transaction log is created may be sent to a first application to notify a user, i.e. notifying a user of the first log;)
Stead and Nazir are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead to include the method of notifying users of transaction log status data as disclosed by Nazir. Paragraph [0093] of Nazir discloses that the system includes a plurality of technical advantages such as interoperability between disparate transaction processing systems without requiring significant modifications to the plurality of transaction processing systems, which provides a solution for interoperability of data across disparate systems.
Stead-Nazir does not disclose the step of receiving, via the application, a first API call to download a retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system;
and downloading, via the first API, the retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system.
Seigle discloses the step of receiving, via the application, a first API call to download a retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system; See Col. 9, lines 28-33, (Disclosing a system for retrieving ranges of data stored within archived data in response to download requests. An API request handler 231 may receive download requests for retrieved ranges of archived data objects staged for download, i.e. receiving, via the application, a first API call to download a retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system;)
and downloading, via the first API, the retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system. See FIG. 6, (FIG. 6 illustrates a method of processing download requests comprising steps 632, 634 of sending the one or more requested data chucks of retrieved data for the archived data object, i.e. downloading, via the first API, the retrieved copy of the first archived object from the auxiliary memory system.
Stead¸Nazir and Seigle are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead-Nazir to include the method of processing download requests for archived objects as disclosed by Seigle. Col.11, lines 64-67 & Col. 12, lines 1-15 of Seigle discloses that the system comprises a storage node manager job store 313 that allows job optimization such as batch processing, operation coalescing, etc. by supporting scanning, querying, sorting or otherwise manipulating and managing job items stored in storage node manager job store 313.
Claim(s) 7, 9-10 and 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006) in view of Boyer et al. (US PGPUB No. 2008/0208834; Pub. Date: Aug. 28, 2008).
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 1, Stead discloses all of the limitations.
Stead further discloses the step of performing the receiving, the processing, and the pushing, for each of a plurality of user requests that are each for a respective archived object; See Paragraph [0092], (Security services layer 703 provides a user access model and security services that govern access to the framework made accessible through a web browser interface. Note [0101] wherein authorized users may request clinical information for a patient using the system described in [0092], i.e. performing the receiving, the processing, and the pushing, for each of a plurality of user requests that are each for a respective archived object (e.g. any authorized user may make requests for patient data).)
respectively performing the updating of respective metadata for the respective archived object to store a respective log of the performing, for each of the plurality of user requests; See Paragraph [0136], (The system may update a transaction log to reflect all information changes and requests that occur in the regional database throughout performance of the method of FIG. 11, i.e. respectively performing the updating of respective metadata for the respective archived object to store a respective log of the performing, for each of the plurality of user requests (e.g. for each request of each authorized user, the transaction log is updated to include all information changes and requests).)
and respectively storing the respective log within a historical retrieval data repository. See Paragraph [0136], (The system may update a transaction log to reflect all information changes and requests that occur in the regional database throughout performance of the method of FIG. 11, i.e. and respectively storing the respective log within a historical retrieval data repository (e.g. the transaction log comprises stored objects relating to information changes and requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the transaction log of Stead may be embodied as a storage system or device based on the many storage system utilized by Staub such as in FIG. 7 which illustrates a plurality of storage systems including vaults, the regional patient index, metadata database, user directory, etc.).)
Stead does not disclose the step of evaluating the historical retrieval data repository to identify historical data retrieval trends;
and optimizing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, at least one from among the processing and the pushing.
Boyer discloses the step of evaluating the historical retrieval data repository to identify historical data retrieval trends; See Paragraph [0014], (Disclosing a system for monitoring user activity and usage of data objects, applications etc. and prioritizing past selections of a user when a search operation is performed. A user's past search activity may be monitored and used to enhance future search activity. Monitored selections may be used to select or prioritize data items based on record information of past search activity, i.e. evaluating the historical retrieval data repository to identify historical data retrieval trends;)
and optimizing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, at least one from among the processing and the pushing. See Paragraph [0014], (Disclosing a system for monitoring user activity and usage of data objects, applications etc. and prioritizing past selections of a user when a search operation is performed. A user's past search activity may be monitored and used to enhance future search activity. Monitored selections may be used to select or prioritize data items based on record information of past search activity, i.e. optimizing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, at least one from among the processing and the pushing (e.g. past search data is used to enhance future search activity by prioritizing application data resources that have been previously searched).)
Stead and Boyer are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead to include the method of retrieving search results based on past search activity of a user as disclosed by Boyer. Paragraph [0020] of Boyer discloses that the enhanced search process introduces intelligence ins electing and/or prioritizing data items and files that are searched for by users. This process results in a reduction of search time and processing resources needed to provide a successful search result.
Regarding dependent claim 9,
As discussed above with claim 7, Stead-Boyer discloses all of the limitations.
Boyer further discloses the step of generating, based on the historical data retrieval trends, at least one from among at least one graph and at least one report; See Paragraph [0014], (Disclosing a system for monitoring user activity and usage of data objects, applications etc. and prioritizing past selections of a user when a search operation is performed. A user's past search activity may be monitored and used to enhance future search activity. Monitored selections may be used to select or prioritize data items based on record information of past search activity.) See Paragraph [0032], (Search results 140 comprise one or more matching or related entries corresponding to and/or identifying a data item, document, file or other data item, i.e. generating, based on the historical data retrieval trends, at least one from among at least one graph and at least one report (e.g. past search history may be used to provide search results corresponding to documents, i.e. a report).)
Additionally, Stead further discloses the step of displaying, within a graphical user interface (GUI), the at least one from among the at least one graph and the at least one report. See Paragraph [0100], (An authorized user may request a complete clinical chart containing clinical information for a given patient. Note [0126] wherein all available and authorized shared data may be displayed for a requesting healthcare entity, i.e. displaying, within a graphical user interface (GUI), the at least one report.)
Regarding dependent claim 10,
As discussed above with claim 7, Stead-Boyer discloses all of the limitations.
Boyer further discloses the step of wherein the optimizing further comprises at least one from among: performing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, the retrieving and the pushing of the first archived object prior to the receiving, the processing and the updating; See Paragraphs [0056], (Cache component 312 maintains a list or index of past search criteria and matching items, i.e. performing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, the retrieving and the pushing of the first archived object prior to the receiving, the processing and the updating (e.g. search results are cached in advance of subsequent queries based on past queries, i.e. retrieving and pushing objects is performed prior to receiving and processing subsequent queries);)
and utilizing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, a retrieved copy of the first archived object to fulfill a subsequent user request. See Paragraphs [0055]-[0056], (A user may open and view data items from a list of matching items 325 representing items that have been previously returned as part of prior search interactions. A cache component 212 may be used to provide a cached search result 352 from a list or index of past search criteria and matching items 325, i.e. utilizing, based on the historical data retrieval trends, a retrieved copy of the first archived object to fulfill a subsequent user request (e.g. user requests use previous user search activity to provide previously searched data items).)
Stead and Boyer are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead to include the method of retrieving search results based on past search activity of a user as disclosed by Boyer. Paragraph [0020] of Boyer discloses that the enhanced search process introduces intelligence ins electing and/or prioritizing data items and files that are searched for by users. This process results in a reduction of search time and processing resources needed to provide a successful search result.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 19,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 9 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 20,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 10 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0287890; Pub. Date: Dec. 21, 2006) in view of Potharaju et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0334242; Pub. Date: Oct. 28, 2021).
Regarding dependent claim 21,
As discussed above with claim 1, Stead discloses all of the limitations.
While Stead discloses the use of a low-level API provided as part of an information layer,
Stead does not explicitly disclose the step wherein the configuring comprises: exposing a first set of endpoints of the repository of archived objects;
and configuring the first API gateway to utilize the first set of endpoints to interface with the repository of archived objects.
Potharaju discloses the step wherein the configuring comprises: exposing a first set of endpoints of the repository of archived objects; See Paragraph [0029], (Disclosing a system for generation and traversal of a hierarchical index structure. FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 comprising a frontend server 106 comprising one or more API(s) 114. Frontend servers 106 are configured to act as a frontend gateway responsible for authenticating and authorizing users of a client computing device 108 to enable users to query a hierarchical index structure 110, i.e. wherein the configuring comprises: exposing a first set of endpoints of the repository of archived objects (e.g. frontend server 106 is configured to act as a gateway between client computing device 108 and backend server 104 comprising a hierarchical index structure 110. Both the client computing device 108 and backend servers 104 are endpoints exposed by frontend servers 106 which is configured to do so and utilizes APIs to facilitate the search process between said endpoints.)
and configuring the first API gateway to utilize the first set of endpoints to interface with the repository of archived objects. See Paragraphs [0029]-[0030], (APIs 114 are used to perform search queries for reading data maintained by file system 114 and indexed by hierarchical index structure 114 and may include REST APIs. Users may submit queries via user interface 126 rendered on client computing device 108. The input queries are transmitted to frontend server 106 which utilizes APIs to issue search queries to backend server(s) 104,i.e. configuring the first API gateway (e.g. frontend server 106 is configured to act as a frontend gateway and comprises APIs 114) to utilize the first set of endpoints to interface with the repository of archived objects (e.g. the APIs facilitate search operations between a client and source of data).)
Stead and Potharaju are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data retrieval operations. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Stead to include the method of retrieving search results based on past search activity of a user as disclosed by Potharaju. Paragraph [0028] of Potharaju discloses that the use of a hierarchical index structure 110 allows for efficient ingestion and organization of extremely large datasets in a cost-efficient manner
Regarding dependent claim 22,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 21 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1,
Applicant argues the following:
The primary prior art reference does not disclose "the repository of archived objects" or "the first archived object" elements of the independent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees,
Claim 1 as currently presented, includes the following limitation:
receiving, via an application, a first user request for a first archived object that is stored within the repository of archived objects;
Neither the claims not Specification provide a special definition or the term “archive” beyond what one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize in the field of computer techniques. The examiner has interpreted the term “archived” as referring to storing a data object in a storage system or device as per the plain meaning of the term. The method of Stead discloses a regional databank that allows users to retrieve stored data wherein the stored patient data meets the definition of an object stored within a repository as an archived object is analogous to a stored object.
The primary prior art reference fails to disclose the "configuring [an] application programming interface" limitation of the independent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees,
Claim 1 as currently presented, includes the following limitation:
configuring a first application programing interface (API) gateway between an auxiliary memory system and a repository of archived objects;
The limitation above does not describe a particular manner in which the API gateway is configured. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the term to refer to making the API usable for the purposes of the system of Stead. Paragraph [0086] of Stead describes the use of information layer 701 which includes low-level API 720 which itself includes a tagging and indexing component 727 for identifying and classifying data for incorporation into ta patient record. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for the low-level API 720 to perform the described functions, it would necessarily need to be configured to perform said tasks such as during an initialization stage. In Paragraph [0086] of Stead, information layer 701 is described as “provid[ing] a comprehensive framework for aggregating, harmonizing and providing core access to a broad spectrum of structured & non-structured healthcare information that exists within and across multiple, unrelated and geographically remote healthcare organizations.” which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as describing a process of implementing the information layer 701 to perform the described functionality including the individual components that execute the functionality of information layer 701, including the low-level API 720. Via the providing, the system implements an information layer 701 which includes the low-level API 720 responsible for performing the tasks indicated above, i.e. the low-level API 720 is configured.
Regarding dependent claims 7, 15 and 17,
Applicant argues the following:
Dependent claims 7, 15 and 17 can no longer be considered to have been anticipated by the primary prior art reference because claims 7, 15 and 17 have now been amended to incorporate the limitations of previously presented claims 8 and 16.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Boyer does not disclose the following limitation:
“identify[ing] historical data retrieval trends”
The examiner respectfully disagrees,
Boyer is directed to a system for monitoring user activity, specifically search activity which is used to enhance future search activity. Paragraph [0014] of Boyer specifically describes monitoring user selections of entries during a search process.
As the claim does not provide a particular structure or definition for the term “trend” the examiner has interpreted the trend under its plain meaning which would include a tendency or direction of a subject. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a collection of user actions over time as it relates to performing searches would correspond to a historical (e.g. user selections over time) data retrieval (e.g. the user selections correspond to search actions) trend (e.g. the overall collection of user selections monitored by the system indicate a direction or tendency of user selections). The process of monitoring is equivalent to a process of identifying as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the term identifying to include a process of observing, such as monitoring as presented in Boyer based on the claim language which merely requires identifying a trend of data retrieval.
Therefore, while claims 7, 15 and 17 are not anticipated by Stead, the examiner believes the combination of Stead and Boyer still discloses the claims as currently presented for at least the reasons indicated above..
New Claims 21 and 22,
Claims 21 and 22 are newly presented and required search and consideration. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected as discussed above.
Finality of the next Office Action
No new grounds of rejections have been raised for any of claims 1, 7, 11 and 15-17.
Claims 21 and 22 were newly presented and required new grounds of rejection as the claims had not been previously examined.
Cancellation of claims 8 and 18 is acknowledged. The corresponding rejections have been withdrawn.
Therefore, the Finality of the Office Action is proper.
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 Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights