DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to application filed on 9/22/2025, in which claims 1, 10, and 18 was amended, claims 6 and 15 was canceled, and claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 was presented for examination.
3. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks
5. As per rejection of claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant argues in substance in pages 3 – 4 that the claim is an improvement over the available invention.
In response to applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully responds that the content of the claim is directed retrieving of the file version using a portion of the file, storing, and managing the file. Using a computer to perform this function amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as explained below in the detail rejection. Thus, the claims are not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
6. 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 – 5, 7 - 9, 10 – 15, 16 - 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 – 14, 16 - 18, 1 – 6, 7 - 8, and 19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. US 12,147383 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent application anticipated all the limitation of the instant application.
Instant Application #: 18/906,786
Patent #: US 12,147383 B2
1. A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a first portion of the data, a uniform resource identifier (URI) for the file, and an expiration date for accessing the file at the URI; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value; storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component.
10. A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file being stored in a data source and comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a uniform resource identifier for the file, a secret key for accessing the file, one or more filter parameters, and at least one of metadata of the file or a sample of the data of the file, at least a portion of the data of the file being excluded from the async version of the file; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value for at least one of the one or more filter parameters; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; storing the portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the including of the second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file comprises filtering a dimension of the data of the file based on the parameter value.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein: the one or more filter parameters comprises one or more dimensions of the data of the file; and the including the at least a portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file comprises filtering the data of the file based on the parameter value for at least one of the one or more dimensions of the data of the file.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the async version of the file comprises a sample of the data of the file
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the async version of the file comprises the sample of the data of the file.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the async version of the file comprises metadata of the file.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein the async version of the file comprises the metadata of the file.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the metadata of the file comprises at least one of a characterization of the data of the file, an identification of a creator of the file, a total size of the file, or a size of a portion of the data of the file excluded from the async version of the file
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the metadata of the file comprises at least one of a characterization of the data of the file, an identification of a creator of the file, a total size of the file, or a size of the at least a portion of the data of the file excluded from the async version of the file.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer operations further comprise: receiving, by the client component, the async version of the file; displaying, by the client component, a filter parameter of the file on a computing device; receiving, by the client component from the computing device, the parameter value for the filter parameter; generating, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file using the parameter value; sending, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file to a data source that stores the file; and receiving, by the client component, the requested version of the file.
16. The system of claim 10, wherein the computer operations further comprise: receiving, by the client component, the async version of the file; displaying, by the client component, the one or more filter parameters and the at least one of the metadata of the file or the sample of the data of the file on a computing device; receiving, by the client component from the computing device, the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; generating, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file using the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; sending, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file to the data source; and receiving, by the client component, the requested version of the file.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer operations further comprise: providing, by the client component, the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file to a software application
17. The system of claim 10, wherein the computer operations further comprise: providing, by the client component, the at least a portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file to a software application.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the software application comprises a cloud-based analytics application
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the software application comprises a cloud-based analytics application
10. A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system comprising a memory and at least one hardware processor, the computer-implemented method comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a portion of the data, a uniform resource identifier (URI) for the file, and an expiration date for accessing the file at the URI; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including a second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value; storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component.
1. A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system comprising a memory and at least one hardware processor, the computer-implemented method comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file being stored in a data source and comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a uniform resource identifier for the file, a secret key for accessing the file, one or more filter parameters, and at least one of metadata of the file or a sample of the data of the file, at least a portion of the data of the file being excluded from the async version of the file; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value for at least one of the one or more filter parameters; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; storing the portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the including of the second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file comprises filtering a dimension of the data of the file based on the parameter value.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more filter parameters comprises one or more dimensions of the data of the file; and the including the at least a portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file comprises filtering the data of the file based on the parameter value for at least one of the one or more dimensions of the data of the file.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the async version of the file comprises a sample of the data of the file.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the async version of the file comprises the sample of the data of the file.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the async version of the file comprises metadata of the file.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the async version of the file comprises the metadata of the file
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the metadata of the file comprises at least one of a characterization of the data of the file, an identification of a creator of the file, a total size of the file, or a size of a portion of the data of the file excluded from the async version of the file.
5. The computer-implemented method
of claim 4, wherein the metadata of the file comprises at least one of a characterization of the data of the file, an identification of a creator of the file, a total size of the file, or a size of the at least
a portion of the data of the file excluded from the async version of the file.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving, by the client component, the async version of the file; displaying, by the client component, a filter parameter of the file on a computing device; receiving, by the client component from the computing device, the parameter value for the filter parameter; generating, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file using the parameter value; sending, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file to a data source that stores the file; and receiving, by the client component, the requested version of the file.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the client component, the async version of the file; displaying, by the client component, the one or more filter parameters and the at least one of the metadata of the file or the sample of the data of the file on a computing device; receiving, by the client component from the computing device, the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; generating, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file using the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; sending, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file to the data source; and receiving, by the client component, the requested version of the file.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: providing, by the client component, the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file to a software application.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the client component, the at least a portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file to a software application.
18. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium tangibly embodying a set of instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, causes the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a first portion of the data, a uniform resource identifier (URI) for the file, and an expiration date for accessing the file at the URI receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including a second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value; storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component.
19. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium tangibly embodying a set of instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, causes the at least one hardware processor to perform computer operations comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file being stored in a data source and comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a uniform resource identifier for the file, a secret key for accessing the file, one or more filter parameters, and at least one of metadata of the file or a sample of the data of the file, at least a portion of the data of the file being excluded from the async version of the file; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value for at least one of the one or more filter parameters; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value for the at least one of the one or more filter parameters; storing the portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component
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.
7. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a first portion of the data; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value; generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value; storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database; and sending the requested version of the file to the client component”.
The limitation of sending an async version of a file to a client component, the file comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a first portion of the data; receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component, the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being perform in the mind. For example, but for the “system” language, “sending” and “receiving” in the context of this claim encompass manually transferring file and requesting for further information regarding the received file.
Also, limitation of generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file, the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “system” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompass manually requesting for specific content information associated with the file.
The limitation of storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system” language, ”storing” and “managing” in the context of this claim encompasses keeping the file in cabinet and recording detailed information of who accesses the files, works on the file, and transfers the file.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a system to perform both the generating and sending steps. The computer system in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of searching for information based on request) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to perform both the generating and sending steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 11, and 19 recites additional elements of “wherein the including of the second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file comprises filtering a dimension of the data of the file based on the parameter value”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to identify particular portion of the file to request amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 12, and 20 recites additional elements of “wherein the async version of the file comprises a sample of the data of the file”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to identify part of the representation of the file amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 13 recites additional elements of “wherein the async version of the file comprises metadata of the file”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to identify characteristics of the file amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 14 recites additional elements of “wherein the metadata of the file comprises at least one of a characterization of the data of the file, an identification of a creator of the file, a total size of the file, or a size of a portion of the data of the file excluded from the async version of the file”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to identify characteristics of the file amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 15 recites additional elements of “wherein the async version of the file further comprises a uniform resource identifier (URI) for the file and an expiration date for accessing the file at the URI”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to identify characteristics of the file amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 16 recites additional elements of “receiving, by the client component, the async version of the file; displaying, by the client component, a filter parameter of the file on a computing device; receiving, by the client component from the computing device, the parameter value for the filter parameter; generating, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file using the parameter value; sending, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file to a data source that stores the file; and receiving, by the client component, the requested version of the file”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer to request for file information, displaying attribute information of the file, make a request for some portion of the file, retrieving the requested portion, and providing it to requesting entity amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 17 recites additional elements of “providing, by the client component, the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file to a software application”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to provide the file to an application amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional elements of “wherein the software application comprises a cloud-based analytics application”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer system to provide the file to an application amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 1 – 4, 7 - 13, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1), in view of Bono et al (US 10,983,964 B1), and further in view of Dismore et al (US 2010/0223467 A1).
As per claim 1, Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor (para.[0036]; “the computer can comprise a processor and the requester can be a process (such as a software process or a thread) and the processor can be configured to perform the process”)
to perform computer operations comprising: sending an async version of a file to a client component (para.[0015]; “received side information indicating the desired version, and based on meta information (e.g. a file header)”, where side information of a file is interpreted as “async version of a file”).
the file comprising data, the async version of the file comprising a first portion of the data (para.[0053]; “a plurality of different files can be stored in the storage medium 107, which are administered by the file system 100. ……… the file system 100 can be stored on the same storage medium 107 (as the requested file)”)
receiving a request for additional data of the file from the client component (para.[0102]; “additional side information (such as a maximum horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels) is included in a second request (2) 101-2, the file system 101 delivers only the chosen part 109 of the requested file”).
the request for additional data from the file comprising a parameter value (para.[0110]; “transmitting additional parameters (the side information) during a file request to the file system”).
generating a requested version of the file based on the request for additional data of the file (para.[0110]; “uses this additional side information, for providing scalable files in a version which is appropriate for the desired use case to the requesting application”).
the generating of the requested version of the file comprising including at least a second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file based on the parameter value (para.[0114]; “provides the requested part 109 of file 105 according to the transferred side information ( or additional parameters) in a version which is optimized for the desired use case”).
and sending the requested version of the file to the client component (para.[0010]; “provide a chosen part of the requested file corresponding to a desired version of the content of the requested file to the requester, based on received side information in the request, the received side information indicating the desired version, and based on meta information of the requested file” and para.[0017]; “Only this chosen part of the requested file (and not the complete requested file) is provided or transmitted (together with a new header for the chosen part) to the Requester”).
Sparenberg discloses meta information of the side information, Sparenberg does not specifically disclose storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database; managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database.
However, Bono et al (US 10,983,964 B1) in an analogous art discloses,
storing the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file in a database (col.1 lines 23 – 25; “data storage systems organize their data in file systems, which store host data in files and directories” and col.5 lines 34 – 35; “server 150 includes a file system database”).
managing, by a daemon, a lifecycle of the second portion of the data of the file stored in the database (col.18 lines 28 – 32; “file system manager 1702 manages a lifecycle of the file system 1710 (e.g., its creation, operation, and removal) and orchestrates various operations that involve the file system 1710, such as provisioning, de-provisioning, allocation, and free-space scavenging”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate file lifecycle management of the system of Bono into file maintenance of the system of Sparenberg to maintain information used for identifying files, thereby enabling system to adequately identify every part of information associated with the requested file.
Neither Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) nor Bono et al (US 10,983,964 B1) specifically disclose first portion of the data, a uniform resource identifier (URI) for the file, and an expiration date for accessing the file at the URI.
However, Dismore et al (US 2010/0223467 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
first portion of the data, a uniform resource identifier (URI) for the file, and an expiration date for accessing the file at the URI (para.[0053; “file types and then share a publicly accessible address, e.g., a uniform resource identifier (URI) or locator (URL)” and claim 4; “parameters include one or more selected from the group of: date the access expires; a number of views before the access expires; whether the document can be downloaded, viewed, or both”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate file URI and access expiration of the system of Dismore into file lifecycle management of the system of Bono to properly maintain the file, thereby giving user access to updated information.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
wherein the including of the second portion of the data of the file in the requested version of the file comprises filtering a dimension of the data of the file based on the parameter value (para.[0013]; “requesting a desired version of a content of a media file ……the desired version having a desired resolution, quality, color component, region of interest, temporal gap or view information of a plurality of available resolutions, qualities, color components, regions of interest, temporal gaps” and para.[0018]; “the side information in the request can define or indicate a desired resolution or quality of the content (such as a desired resolution or quality of an image, a video or an audio stream) of the requested file”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
wherein the async version of the file comprises a sample of the data of the file (para.[0118]; “the side information indicating a desired version of the content of the requested file”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
wherein the async version of the file comprises metadata of the file (para.[0015]; “side information indicating the desired version, and based on meta information (e.g. a file header) of the requested file”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
wherein the computer operations further comprise: receiving, by the client component, the async version of the file (para.[0015]; “received side information indicating the desired version, and based on meta information (e.g. a file header)”, where side information of a file is interpreted as “async version of a file”).
displaying, by the client component, a filter parameter of the file on a computing device (para.[0122]; “view information of a plurality of available resolutions, qualities, color components, regions of interest, temporal gaps or view information of the content available in the requested file”).
receiving, by the client component from the computing device, the parameter value for the filter parameter (para.[0059]; “extract a given number of bits of the requested file 105 belonging to the chosen part 109 and to transfer these bits to the requester”).
generating, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file using the parameter value (para.[0102]; “additional side information (such as a maximum horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels) is included in a second request (2) 101-2, the file system 101 delivers only the chosen part 109 of the requested file”).
sending, by the client component, the request for additional data of the file to a data source that stores the file (para.[0110]; “transmitting additional parameters (the side information) during a file request to the file system”)
and receiving, by the client component, the requested version of the file (para.[0010]; “provide a chosen part of the requested file corresponding to a desired version of the content of the requested file to the requester, based on received side information in the request”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
wherein the computer operations further comprise: providing, by the client component, the second portion of the data of the file included in the requested version of the file to a software application (para.[0057]; “generates the header for the chosen part 109 of the requested file 105 in dependence on the side information in the request 101 (which, for example, indicates the resolution or quality of the desired version)”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) discloses,
wherein the software application comprises a cloud-based analytics application (para.[0142]; “transferred via a data communication connection, for example via the Internet”).
Claims 10 – 13 and 16 – 17 are method claim corresponding to system claims 1 – 4 and 7 – 8 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 4 and 7 – 8 respectively above.
Claims 18 - 21 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim corresponding to system claims 1 – 4 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 4 respectively above.
9. Claims 5, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1), in view of Bono et al (US 10,983,964 B1), in view of Dismore et al (US 2010/0223467 A1), and further in view of Ohr et al (US 7,680,830 B1).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) and Bono et al (US 10,983,964 B1) discloses w wherein the metadata of the file comprises at least one of a characterization of the data of the file ………… a total size of the file, or a size of a portion of the data of the file excluded from the async version of the file (Sparenberg: para.[0024]; “the meta information can indicate for each version of the content” and para.[0057]; “header (so called meta information) for the chosen part 109 of the requested file 105. Such a header can include, for example, a size of the file and information about the performed scaling of the requested file”).
Neither Sparenberg et al (US 2015/0213044 A1) and Bono et al (US 10,983,964 B1) specifically disclose … an identification of a creator of the file ….
However, Ohr et al (US 7,680,830 B1) in an analogous art discloses,
an identification of a creator of the file (col.7 lines 10 – 14; “retention periods for all
files or for groups of files in the file system 102 or for particular types of files, files with particular owners or creators, files created by particular applications, files in particular
directories”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate file lifecycle management of the system of Ohr into file URI and access expiration of the system of Dismore and file lifecycle management of the system of Bono to maintain file information used for identifying files in the system of Sparenberg, thereby enabling system to adequately identify each part of the requested file.
Claims 14 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 5, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 22 is a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium corresponding to system claim 5, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
12/13/2025