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 / Arguments
Regarding double patenting:
Responsive to the 5/6/2026 terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, in view of the amended claim language, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pal (US 2019/0147084 A1) and Minkin (US 6,826,698 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Example independent claim recites “wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, such that the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process,” which fails to comply with the written description requirement because the instant specification does not disclose “using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, such that the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process” at this level of generality. Specifically, the instant specification does not disclose prohibiting all other data transfer techniques and “only” being able to retrieve the batch using the partitioned retrieval process. Instead, the instant specification discusses a context “where more common methods may be prohibited” and that “network administrators may not permit conventional methods of data transfer (e.g., FTP, e-mail, etc.) to be employed in the local computing environment 102” (see [0012] and [0022] of the instant specification). Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar claim language, and are rejected under the same analysis as above.
The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected with their respective parent claims. While claim 23 does further specify prohibiting FTP, this is open-ended and does not alter “using other data transfer techniques” and “only… using the partitioned retrieval process.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-16, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relkin (US 2017/0032038 A1) in view of McAlister (US 10,963,435 B1), Pal (US 2019/0147084 A1), and Minkin (US 6,826,698 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Relkin discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors of a local computing environment (e.g., client 201 in FIG. 2C of Relkin; [0013], [0037], and [0061]-[0062] of Relkin with respect to the embodiment where the client performs the processing) for causing the one or more processors to perform operations including:
transmitting a first request to a computing environment, the first request being for a total number of records in a batch of records that was processed by the computing environment during a prior time window (stored results in the database for a given search);
Refer to at least 501 in FIG. 5, [0025], [0040], and [0062] of Relkin with respect to a client query to a database (e.g., web service as PubMed as in [0030]-[0031] of Relkin).
Refer to at least 502 in FIG. 5, [0042], and [0062] of Relkin with respect to determining the total number of results.
receiving a first response to the first request, the first response indicating the total number of records in the batch of records;
Refer to at least 502 in FIG. 5, [0042], and [0062] of Relkin with respect to the client obtaining the total number of results for further steps 503-512.
transmitting a second request to the computing environment, the second request being for a list of subgroups of records contained within the batch of records;
Refer to at least 505 in FIG. 5, [0042]-[0043], and [0062] of Relkin with respect to the client requesting subsets of the results (e.g., [0032] of Relkin).
receiving a second response to the second request, the second response including the list of subgroups of records;
Refer to at least [0069]-[0070], and 506 in FIG. 5 of Relkin with respect to receiving the requested subsets and a virtual scrolling list of search results for display and requesting.
executing a partitioned retrieval process for the batch of records (e.g., partitionable search results as in Relkin), wherein the partitioned retrieval process involves:
spawning a number of processing threads in the local computing environment; and
operating the processing threads in parallel, such that each of the processing threads retrieves one or more of the subgroups of records from the computing environment and saves the one or more subgroups of records to one or more files in the local computing environment; and
Refer to at least FIG. 2c, 503-506 in FIG. 5, [0012], [0030], [0032], [0035], [0037], [0039], and [0061]-[0062] of Relkin with respect to assigning processing tasks to retrieve respective subsets of the search results in parallel.
Refer to at least [0042]-[0044], [0058], and [0061]-[0062] of Relkin with respect to the particulars of, e.g., the client allocating and assigning threads for the tasks.
Refer to at least [0014], [0050], and [0082] of Relkin with respect to the client storing and saving the results.
Relkin does not specify: the computing environment further comprising a cloud computing environment; transmitting/receiving via an application programming interface (API) of a cloud computing environment; executing the partitioned retrieval process based on the list of subgroups provided in the second response; retrieving the one or more subgroups of records listed in the second response; validating the partitioned retrieval process by determining whether a number of records stored in the one or more files matches the total number of records in the batch of records; wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, such that the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process, wherein the partitioned retrieval process is usable as a more secure alternative to the other data transfer techniques. However, Relkin in view of Pal discloses: the computing environment further comprising a cloud computing environment; transmitting/receiving via an application programming interface (API) of a cloud computing environment;
Refer to at least [0219]-[0222], [0164], and [0882] of Pal with respect to external data source APIs for queries, where the external source can be a cloud system; further, the data intake and query system may be a cloud based service.
executing the partitioned retrieval process based on the list of subgroups provided in the second response; retrieving the one or more subgroups of records listed in the second response;
Refer to at least [0738]-[0739], [0761], [0780], and [0849] of Pal with respect to a query coordinator interacting with a data source to obtain information related to a number of partitions (e.g., [0537] of Pal); retrieving data based on the number of partitions.
The teachings of Relkin and Pal both concern search queries and data retrieval, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Relkin to implement communicating partition information for at least the purpose of dynamically adjusting transmission of data according to respective capabilities. It further would have been obvious to implement a cloud computing environment because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Relkin-Pal does not specify: validating the partitioned retrieval process by determining whether a number of records stored in the one or more files matches the total number of records in the batch of records; wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, such that the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process, wherein the partitioned retrieval process is usable as a more secure alternative to the other data transfer techniques. However, Relkin-Pal in view of McAlister discloses: validating the partitioned retrieval process by determining whether a number of records stored in the one or more files matches the total number of records in the batch of records.
Refer to at least Col. 5, LI. 25-30&61-64, Col. 13, LI. 9-33, Col. 27, LI. 42-Col. 28, LI. 4, and Col. 31, LI. 13-15 of McAlister with respect to validating data transferred by counting records at the target versus the source.
The teachings of Relkin-Pal and McAlister both concern databases and data retrieval, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Relkin-Pal to further implement validating data transfer for at least the purpose of maintaining the integrity of search results (e.g., error-free data transfer to ensure correct service for a user; making sure all search results have been properly obtained).
Relkin-Pal-McAlister does not specify: wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, such that the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process, wherein the partitioned retrieval process is usable as a more secure alternative to the other data transfer techniques. However, Relkin-Pal-McAlister in view of Minkin discloses: wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, such that the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of records from the cloud computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process, wherein the partitioned retrieval process is usable as a more secure alternative to the other data transfer techniques.
Refer to at least FIG. 6, Col. 6, Ll. 54-67, and Col. 11, Ll. 54-67 of Minkin with respect to policy including permitting or denying certain communication protocols (e.g., FTP).
The teachings of Minkin concern network access control policy, which is considered to be combinable with the teachings of Relkin-Pal-McAlister concerning network data access.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Relkin-Pal-McAlister to further implement network access control policy and denying certain protocols for at least the purpose of improving network security and data security (i.e., preventing use of unsafe or outdated protocols).
Regarding claim 2, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the number of processing threads that are spawned in the local computing environment depends on the total number of records in the batch of records.
Refer to at least [0042]-[0043] and [0062] of Relkin with respect to determining a total number of search results and allocating the tasks based on the number.
Refer to at least FIG. 4, Col. 20, Ll. 20-25, and Col. 21, Ll. 3-6 of McAlister with respect to spawning a configurable number of threads associated with partitions when needed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Relkin-Pal-McAlister to further implement spawning a configurable number of threads as needed for at least the purpose of improved load balancing and performance.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2 above (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claim 4, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein each of the processing threads is configured to retrieve a different set of subgroups than the other processing threads from the cloud computing environment.
Refer to at least [0030], [0032], [0043], [0056], and [0062] of Relkin with respect to assigning a task to each subset (e.g., one task gets results 11-20 while another gets 21-30).
Regarding claim 6, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein each of the processing threads is configured to (e.g., Col. 6, Ll. 12-16; Col. 11, Ll. 34-44 of McAlister): determine that each retrieved subgroup matches an expected size of the subgroup; and generate a failure notification in response to determining that a retrieved subgroup does not match the expected size of the subgroup.
Refer to at least FIG. 10B and Col. 5, Ll. 30-58 of McAlister with respect to a validation failure table for informing users of validation failures.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to further modify the teachings of Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin to implement notifying users about validation failures for at least the reasons discussed in the cited portions of McAlister (i.e., helping to identify and remedy problems; helping to identify how much data was successfully transferred).
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1 and 6 above (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationales).
Regarding independent claim 8, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 13-14, they are substantially similar to claims 2-4 and 6-7 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding independent claim 15, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claim 16, it is substantially similar to claim 2 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 6 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 21, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein, prior to receiving the second request, the cloud computing environment is configured to divide the batch of records into the subgroups using a round robin technique in which each record in the batch of records is sequentially assigned to one of the subgroups.
Refer to at least [1035] of Pal with respect to instructions to distribute the results in a round robin order.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to further modify the teachings of Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin to implement round robin distribution because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein, prior to receiving the second request, the cloud computing environment is configured to divide the batch of records into the subgroups using a random assignment process in which each record in the batch of records is randomly assigned to one of the subgroups.
Refer to at least [1035] of Pal with respect to instructions to distribute the results in a random order.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 23, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the batch of records is a set of transaction records associated with a bank, the operations further comprising: determining the number of processing threads to be spawned in the local computing environment based on a predefined ratio of processing threads to subgroups, wherein the predefined ratio is preselected by a user prior to executing the partitioned retrieval process, and wherein the predefined ratio is 1:3 or 1:4;
Refer to at least [0926] and [0952] of Pal with respect to 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 correspondences between spawned nodes and data buckets.
and prohibiting, in the local computing environment, use of File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and electronic mail for receiving the batch of records from the cloud computing environment.
Refer to at least FIG. 6 of Minkin with respect to denying use of FTP.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-16, and 20-23 above, and further in view of Jimbo (US 2022/0391351 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin does not specify: wherein the subgroups are encrypted by the cloud computing environment before being transmitted to the processing threads, and wherein the processing threads are configured to: retrieve the encrypted subgroups from the cloud computing environment; decrypt the encrypted subgroups using a decryption key; and save the decrypted subgroups to the one or more files. However, Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin in view of Jimbo discloses: wherein the subgroups are encrypted by the cloud computing environment before being transmitted to the processing threads, and wherein the processing threads are configured to: retrieve the encrypted subgroups from the cloud computing environment; decrypt the encrypted subgroups using a decryption key; and save the decrypted subgroups to the one or more files.
Refer to at least S113-S117 in FIG. 9, [0096], and [0145] of Jimbo with respect to a server encrypting search result responsive to a requesting client, which receives and decrypts the encrypted search result.
The teachings of Jimbo likewise concern database querying and obtaining search results, and is considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to further modify the teachings of Relkin-Pal-McAlister-Minkin to implement encrypting the search results because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, and for at least the purpose of improving privacy (e.g., a user wants to protect from eavesdropping while searching a sensitive database).
Regarding claim 12, it is substantially similar to claim 5 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/V.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights