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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/07/2026 claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are amended, claim 6 has been cancelled and claim 21 has been added per Applicant's request. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-21 are presently pending in the application and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
In light of the filing and approval of electronic terminal disclaimer the previous provisional nonstatutory double patenting is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Applicant’s response, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s amendments to the claims has overcome the rejection on record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over US 20190147084 to Pal et al. (hereinafter “Pal”) in view of US 20170032038 to Relkin et al. (hereinafter “Relkin”) and further in view of US 6826698 to Minkin et al. (hereinafter “Minkin”)
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 1, 8 and 15 directed to “…wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of data from the remote computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process,…” and “...the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of data from the remote computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process...” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
With regards to claims 1, 8 and 15 the feature directed towards “…wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of data from the remote computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process,…” and “...the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of data from the remote computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process...”does not appear to adequately be supported by the specification. The original disclosure describes high-security context in which computing environments that governed by stringent security protocols and regulations and particular conventional data transfer techniques such as File Transfer Protocol and electronic mail are prohibited or severely restricted. The disclosure further describes using API-based partitioned retrieval process without executing an FTP server or transmitting the batch through electronic mail or other messaging protocols see paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0016, 0023 and 0033. However, the original disclosure does not describe prohibiting every data transfer technique other than the claimed partitioned retrieval process. The original disclosure also does not describe configuring the local computing environment such that the partitioned retrieval process is the only mechanism by with the local environment is capable of retrieving the batch from the remote computing environment. The disclosed prohibition or restriction of particular transfer techniques such as FTP and electronic mail does not reasonably convey possession of the broader claimed exclusion of all data transfer techniques other than the partitioned retrieval process. As such the original disclosure does not provide support for the written description of the full scope of the amended limitation and has been rejected as so.
The examiner recommends amending the claim to correspond to the particular transfer restriction supported by the original disclosure, such as in this non limiting example “wherein the one or more security restrictions prohibit use of File Transfer Protocol and electronic mail to acquire the batch of data from the remote computing environment, and wherein the partitioned retrieval process is used to acquire the batch of data without using File Transfer protocol or electronic mail”.
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 1-5 and 7-21 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has not pointed out where the new and amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitations in the application as filed (see above objection to the specification). Dependent claims are rejected for failing to overcome the deficiencies from the base claims in which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 8 and 15 the recitation “wherein the partitioned retrieval process is employed as a more secure alternative to the other data transfer techniques” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, this term, more secure, has no standard meaning within the art and represents no specific and identifiable structure. Furthermore, the applicant's original disclosure fails to define the specific structure, materials or acts that would constitute something as being more secure vs less secure; for example there is no comparison baseline, security analysis or measurement that provides an objective boundary by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a particular partitioned retrieval process is sufficiently “more secure” to fall within the scope to f the claim. Thus it is unclear as to what specific structure, materials, or acts fall within and outside the scope of something being “more secure”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner presumes that the applicant claims broadly references the claims to mean that the partitioned retrieval process provides any comparative security benefits relative to one or more data transfer techniques.
In regards to claim 21, the limitation “retrieve its assigned respective set of subgroups in a sequential order such that a first set of records for a first assigned subgroup is retrieved and completed before a second set of records for a second assigned subgroup is retrieved” renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by the recitation of the first set of records being “completed”, while its clear that a set of records may be retrieved and this operation may be completed before the retrieval of another set of records it is unclear as to how the records themselves are considered to be completed. For the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation to mean retrieval of a first set of records is completed before retrieval of a second set of records.
Dependent claims are rejected for failing to overcome the deficiencies from the base claims in which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190147084 to Pal et al. (hereinafter “Pal”) in view of US 20170032038 to Relkin et al. (hereinafter “Relkin”) and further in view of US 6826698 to Minkin et al. (hereinafter “Minkin”)
Claim 1
Pal teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Claim 30, Para. 1175 – Pal discloses computer program instructions may also be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to operate in a particular manner] including:
determining a number of subgroups into which a batch of data is divided in a remote computing environment; [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841– Pal discloses a query coordinator interacting with an external data source (e.g. remote computing device) to determine the number of available partitions (e.g. subgroups) available for accessing data (e.g. batch of data).] and
executing a partitioned retrieval process for the batch, wherein the partitioned retrieval process involves: determining a number ... to spawn based on the number of subgroups associated with the batch; [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841– Pal discloses the query coordinator dynamically allocating workers or processors to establish a 1:1 relationship with the available partitions at the external data source.]
spawning the number ...; [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841– Pal discloses the query coordinator spawning the worker nodes.]
assigning a respective set of the subgroups to each ...; [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841– Pal discloses the query coordinator assigning the spawned worker nodes to the partitions.] and
operating the processing threads in parallel, such that each of the processing threads retrieves its respective set of subgroups from an application programming interface (API) of the remote computing environment and saves the respective set of subgroups to one or more files. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 0882-0886– Pal discloses obtaining information identifying the APIs and language used to interface with an external data source and the query coordinator dynamically allocating workers or processors to establish a 1:1 relationship with the available partitions at the external data source and causing the worker nodes to submit subqueries and receive the partitioned results in parallel.]
While Pal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and teaches worker nodes Pal fails to explicitly teach that the worker nodes are explicitly processing threads.
However, Relkin explicitly teaches a systems and methods for improving the retrieval of partitionable database search results by allocating processing threads and assigning tasks to those processing threads in which the processing threads operate in parallel. [e.g. Relkin; Abstract, Claim 4, Para. 0042-0044, 0050-0052, 0062– Relkin discloses explicitly that the workers are processing threads operating in parallel on a subset of data and storing the results.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by Pal with the advantage for improving the retrieval of partitionable database along optimal use of resources and reduction of latency as taught by Relkin Para. 0001, 0011 and 0044
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and the partitioned retrieval process the combination fails to explicitly teach one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of data from the remote computing environment using other data transfer techniques.
However, Minkin explicitly teaches applying network security restrictions that identify communication protocols and specifies whether access using each protocol is permitted or denied as well a rule for denying other and all for communications not explicitly permitted. Minkin further teaches permitting HTTP communications while denying FTP communications and separately teaches denying SMTP or electronic mail communications. [e.g. Minkin; Abstract, Para. Col 6 Ln 47 – Col 6 Ln 67, Col 7 Ln 35 – Col 7 Ln 67, Col 8 Ln 56 – Col 8 Ln 63, Col 9 Ln 55 – Col 10 Ln 24, Col 10 Ln 30-Col 10 Ln 40, Col 10 Ln 61 – Col 11 Ln 46 – Minkin discloses security rules that are based on communication protocols used to access network objects including permit and deny commands and denying communications that are not explicitly permitted. Minkin further discloses protocol specific rules denying FTP and SMTP or electronic mail communications.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination with the advantage for protecting enterprise informational resources and preventing accidental or intentional disclosure of sensitive information as taught by Minkin Col 6 Ln 46 – Col l Ln 52 and Col 11 Ln 11 – Col 11 Ln 46.
Thus the combination enables:
wherein the local computing environment applies one or more security restrictions that prohibit the local computing environment from acquiring the batch of data from the remote computing environment using other data transfer techniques than the partitioned retrieval process, wherein the local computing environment is only able to retrieve the batch of data from the remote computing environment using the partitioned retrieval process based on the one or more security restrictions, and wherein the partitioned retrieval process is employed as a more secure alternative to the other data transfer techniques [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 0882-0886; Minkin; Abstract, Para. Col 6 Ln 47 – Col 6 Ln 67, Col 7 Ln 35 – Col 7 Ln 67, Col 8 Ln 56 – Col 8 Ln 63, Col 9 Ln 55 – Col 10 Ln 24, Col 10 Ln 30-Col 10 Ln 40, Col 10 Ln 61 – Col 11 Ln 46 – Pal discloses retrieving partitioned data through an API of the external data source. Minkin discloses applying security restrictions that permit an approved communication protocol while denying FTP, electronic mail or other unauthorized communications to protect informational resources. Thus the combination enables the local computing environment to retrieve the bath through the permitted partitioned API retrieval process rather than through prohibited data transfer techniques thereby employing the partitioned retrieval as the secure alternative.]
Claim 5:
Pal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein operations further comprise: transmitting a request to the remote computing environment for the number of subgroups in the batch; and receiving a response to the request from the remote computing environment indicating the number of subgroups in the batch. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses communicating with external data source to determine the number of partitions (e.g. subgroups) available.]
Regarding claims 8, 12, 14, 15 and 19-20 they are method and system claims essentially corresponding to the above recitations, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Claim 11:
Pal teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting a request to the remote computing environment for the total amount of data in the batch; and receiving a response to the request from the remote computing environment indicating the total amount of data in the batch. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses transmitting and receiving a data ingest estimate (e.g. total amount of data) from the external data system.]
Claim 20:
Pal teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the remote computing environment is configured to divide the batch into the subgroups using a predefined partitioning scheme, prior to the partitioned retrieval process being executed.. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0170-0171, 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses external data systems storing and dividing raw data into segments/partitions indexed by timestamps. The file system type and hierarchy of the external data system along with the number of partitions supported is made available (e.g. predefined partitioning scheme, remote computing environment divide batch into subgroups).]
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 13, and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 20190147084 to Pal et al. (hereinafter “Pal”) in view of US 20170032038 to Relkin et al. (hereinafter “Relkin”) and US 6826698 to Minkin et al. (hereinafter “Minkin”) and further in view of US 20090205026 to Haff et al. (hereinafter “Haff”)
Claim 2
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and teaches parallel retrieval of data fails to explicitly teach a comparison of data to an expected amount and issuing a notification upon failure.
However, Haff explicitly teaches wherein each processing thread is configured to: for each subgroup of its respective set of subgroups: comparing an expected amount of data for the subgroup to a received amount of data for the subgroup; and in response to determining that the expected amount of data does not match the received amount of data, outputting a failure notification. [e.g. Haff; Abstract, Fig. 4b, Para. 0105, 0108, 0111– Haff discloses determining whether the received file (e.g. received amount) is the same size as expected (e.g. expected amount) and logging an error (e.g. failure notification) if the sizes do not coincide.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination with the advantage of determining if received data is error free as disclosed by Haff para. 0108.
Claim 3
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and teaches parallel retrieval of data, the combination fails to explicitly teach validation by comparison of data to an expected amount and issuing a notification upon failure.
However, Haff explicitly teaches wherein operations further comprise: validating the partitioned retrieval process by determining whether a total amount of data stored in the one or more files matches an expected total amount of data in the batch; and in response to determining that the total amount of data stored in the one or more files does not match the expected total amount of data in the batch, outputting a failure notification. [e.g. Haff; Abstract, Fig. 4b, Para. 0105, 0108, 0111– Haff discloses verifying (e.g. validating) whether the received file (e.g. received amount) is the same size as expected (e.g. expected amount) and logging an error (e.g. failure notification) if the sizes do not coincide.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination with the advantage of determining if received data is error free as disclosed by Haff para. 0108.
Claim 4:
Pal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein operations further comprise: transmitting a request to the remote computing environment for the total amount of data in the batch; and receiving a response to the request from the remote computing environment indicating the total amount of data in the batch. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses transmitting and receiving a data ingest estimate (e.g. total amount of data) from the external data system.]
Claim 13
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and teaches that the data retrieved is encrypted the combination fails to explicitly teach decryption of retrieved data with a decryption key.
However, Haff explicitly teaches decrypt[ing] the encrypted subgroups using a decryption key; and save the decrypted subgroups to the one or more files. [e.g. Haff; Abstract, Fig. 4b, Para. 0111, 0114, 0150, 0153– Haff discloses using a decryption key at the receiving computer and storing the decrypted file.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination to explicitly discloses decryption utilizing a key and further explicit recitation that file transport security is assured through encryption/decryption as disclosed in para. 0193 of Haff.
Regarding claims 10, 13, and 16-18 they are method and system claims essentially corresponding to the above recitations, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 20190147084 to Pal et al. (hereinafter “Pal”) in view of US 20170032038 to Relkin et al. (hereinafter “Relkin”) and US 6826698 to Minkin et al. (hereinafter “Minkin”) and further in view of US 20130166606 to Fricke et al. (hereinafter “Fricke”)
Claim 7
Pal teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the remote computing environment is configured to divide the batch into the subgroups. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0170-0171, 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses external data systems storing and dividing raw data into segments/partitions indexed by timestamps. The file system type and hierarchy of the external data system along with the number of partitions supported is made available (e.g. predefined partitioning scheme, remote computing environment divide batch into subgroups).]
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1and teaches parallel retrieval of data and division of data into subgroups the combination fails to explicitly teach round robin technique in which each record in the batch is sequentially assigned to one of the subgroups, prior to the partitioned retrieval process being execute.
However, Fricke explicitly teaches round robin partitioning in which data units are sequential assigned to partitions. [e.g. Fricke; Abstract, Para. 0006, 0027, 0033, 0037– Fricke discloses using round robin partitioning to balance data or processing load among available partitions or processing nodes, wherein a first data unit is assigned to a first partition, a second data unit is assigned to a second partition, etc.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination with the advantage to maximize the even distribution of data across available partitions as taught by Fricke Para. 0006 and 0027.
Claim 21
The combination of Pal, Relkin and Minkin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1.
The recitation that the “batch of data is a set of transaction records associated with a bank” characterizes the information content of the record. The claim does not require the partitioned retrieval process, processing threads, security restrictions or storage operations to operate differently based on whether the records are associated with a bank. Accordingly the recited information content is considered to be non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally related to the claimed computer-readable medium or retrieval operations and is not entitled to patentable weight.
Nevertheless, Pal further teaches processing online transaction data including payment information and other transaction related information. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0167– Pal discloses online transactions generating payment information and other transaction related data.] Thus, Pal data retrieval framework is applicable to transaction records to the same general type as the claimed records.
The combination further teaches the operations further comprising: prohibiting use of File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and electronic mail for transfer of the batch of data, wherein the remote computing environment is configured to divide the batch of data into the subgroups using a predefined partitioning scheme and wherein each processing thread is configured to retrieve its assigned respective set of subgroups in a sequential order such that a first set of records for a first assigned subgroup is retrieved and completed before a second set of records for a second assigned subgroup is retrieved.. [e.g. Minkin; Abstract, Para. Col 6 Ln 47 – Col 6 Ln 67, Col 7 Ln 35 – Col 7 Ln 67, Col 8 Ln 56 – Col 8 Ln 63, Col 9 Ln 55 – Col 10 Ln 24, Col 10 Ln 30-Col 10 Ln 40, Col 10 Ln 61 – Col 11 Ln 46 – Minkin discloses security rules that are based on communication protocols used to access network objects including permit and deny commands and denying communications that are not explicitly permitted. Minkin further discloses protocol specific rules denying FTP and SMTP or electronic mail communications.] [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0170-0171, 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses external data systems storing and dividing raw data into segments/partitions indexed by timestamps. The file system type and hierarchy of the external data system along with the number of partitions supported is made available (e.g. predefined partitioning scheme, remote computing environment divide batch into subgroups).] [e.g. Relkin; Abstract, Claim 5, 7, 8 Para. 0042-0044, 0050-0052, 0062– Relkin discloses placing subset retrieval tasks in a queue, assigning a task to an available processing thread and assigning another queued subset retrieval task to the processing thread after retrieval of the previously assigned subset is completed.]
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and teaches parallel retrieval of data and division of data into subgroups the combination fails to explicitly teach a predefined partitioning scheme comprising at least one of a round robin technique or a random assignment process.
However, Fricke explicitly teaches round robin partitioning in which data units are sequential assigned to partitions. [e.g. Fricke; Abstract, Para. 0006, 0027, 0033, 0037– Fricke discloses using round robin partitioning to balance data or processing load among available partitions or processing nodes, wherein a first data unit is assigned to a first partition, a second data unit is assigned to a second partition, etc.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination with the advantage to maximize the even distribution of data across available partitions as taught by Fricke Para. 0006 and 0027.
Claims 14 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 20190147084 to Pal et al. (hereinafter “Pal”) in view of US 20170032038 to Relkin et al. (hereinafter “Relkin”) and US 6826698 to Minkin et al. (hereinafter “Minkin”) and further in view of US 10366053 to Zheng et al. (hereinafter “Zheng”)
Claim 14
Pal teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the remote computing environment divides the batch into the subgroups. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0170-0171, 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses external data systems storing and dividing raw data into segments/partitions indexed by timestamps. The file system type and hierarchy of the external data system along with the number of partitions supported is made available (e.g. predefined partitioning scheme, remote computing environment divide batch into subgroups).]
While the combination teaches the method of claim 8 and teaches parallel retrieval of data and division of data into subgroups the combination fails to explicitly teach random assignment process in which each record in the batch is randomly assigned to one of the subgroups, prior to the partitioned retrieval process being executed.
However, Zheng explicitly teaches splitting a data sept comprising individual observation records into multiple split subsets by generating random value for each particular observation record and assigning the particular observation record to one of the split subsets based on the random value. [e.g. Zheng; Abstract, Claims 1, 3, 6, Col 45 Ln 50 – Col 50 Ln 67, Col 57 Ln 10 – Col 58 Ln 25 - Zheng discloses assigning each individual record to one of multiple split subsets using a randomized record level splitting technique (e.g. random assignment of each record to a subgroup).]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination in order to assign individual records among the subgroups in a single sequential pass without requiring random access to the records thus reducing I/O costs low and permitting splitting operations to be performed in parallel as taught by Zheng Col 50 Ln 52 – Col 51 Ln 17.
Claim 21
The combination of Pal, Relkin and Minkin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1.
The recitation that the “batch of data is a set of transaction records associated with a bank” characterizes the information content of the record. The claim does not require the partitioned retrieval process, processing threads, security restrictions or storage operations to operate differently based on whether the records are associated with a bank. Accordingly the recited information content is considered to be non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally related to the claimed computer-readable medium or retrieval operations and is not entitled to patentable weight.
Nevertheless, Pal further teaches processing online transaction data including payment information and other transaction related information. [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0167– Pal discloses online transactions generating payment information and other transaction related data.] Thus, Pal data retrieval framework is applicable to transaction records to the same general type as the claimed records.
The combination further teaches the operations further comprising: prohibiting use of File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and electronic mail for transfer of the batch of data, wherein the remote computing environment is configured to divide the batch of data into the subgroups using a predefined partitioning scheme and wherein each processing thread is configured to retrieve its assigned respective set of subgroups in a sequential order such that a first set of records for a first assigned subgroup is retrieved and completed before a second set of records for a second assigned subgroup is retrieved.. [e.g. Minkin; Abstract, Para. Col 6 Ln 47 – Col 6 Ln 67, Col 7 Ln 35 – Col 7 Ln 67, Col 8 Ln 56 – Col 8 Ln 63, Col 9 Ln 55 – Col 10 Ln 24, Col 10 Ln 30-Col 10 Ln 40, Col 10 Ln 61 – Col 11 Ln 46 – Minkin discloses security rules that are based on communication protocols used to access network objects including permit and deny commands and denying communications that are not explicitly permitted. Minkin further discloses protocol specific rules denying FTP and SMTP or electronic mail communications.] [e.g. Pal; Abstract, Para. 0170-0171, 0338, 0533-0544, 0563, 0575, 0583, 0674-0706, 0730-0841, 1013– Pal discloses external data systems storing and dividing raw data into segments/partitions indexed by timestamps. The file system type and hierarchy of the external data system along with the number of partitions supported is made available (e.g. predefined partitioning scheme, remote computing environment divide batch into subgroups).] [e.g. Relkin; Abstract, Claim 5, 7, 8 Para. 0042-0044, 0050-0052, 0062– Relkin discloses placing subset retrieval tasks in a queue, assigning a task to an available processing thread and assigning another queued subset retrieval task to the processing thread after retrieval of the previously assigned subset is completed.]
While the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 and teaches parallel retrieval of data and division of data into subgroups the combination fails to explicitly teach a predefined partitioning scheme comprising at least one of a round robin technique or a random assignment process.
However, Zheng explicitly teaches splitting a data sept comprising individual observation records into multiple split subsets by generating random value for each particular observation record and assigning the particular observation record to one of the split subsets based on the random value. [e.g. Zheng; Abstract, Claims 1, 3, 6, Col 45 Ln 50 – Col 50 Ln 67, Col 57 Ln 10 – Col 58 Ln 25 - Zheng discloses assigning each individual record to one of multiple split subsets using a randomized record level splitting technique (e.g. random assignment of each record to a subgroup).]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the feature above in the invention as disclosed by the combination in order to assign individual records among the subgroups in a single sequential pass without requiring random access to the records thus reducing I/O costs low and permitting splitting operations to be performed in parallel as taught by Zheng Col 50 Ln 52 – Col 51 Ln 17.
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 CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
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 on (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.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights