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 .
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 9,696,939) in view of Wang et al. (US 2004/0167864).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 20, Frank discloses a computing system comprising:
one or more storage devices storing instructions (Fig. 7, 700, Frank); and
processing circuitry having access to the one or more storage devices and configured with the instructions to (Fig. 7, 700, Frank):
expose, via a single application programming interface executed by a data management platform, a unified difference data access layer that provides an abstraction layer by which to obtain difference data between two or more events (Fig. 1, API, Delta Marking Stream, Col. 1, lines 27-40, “obtaining differences between the first snapshot and the second snapshot,” Frank) occurring at different times with respect to an object (Col. 5, lines 4-20; wherein the first snapshot of 112a and the second snapshot of 112a correspond to two or more events occurring at different times with respect to an object as claimed; Frank);
interface, via the single application programming interface, with the unified difference data access layer to obtain the difference data (Col. 1, lines 27-40, “obtaining differences between the first snapshot and the second snapshot,” Frank);
publish the difference data to a change event stream (Col. 2, lines 42-49, “DELTA MARKING STREAM—is the tracking of the delta between the production and replication site, which may contain the meta data of changed locations, the delta marking stream may be kept persistently on the journal at the production site,” Frank);
receive, from an application, a request to access at least a portion of the difference data published to the change event stream (Fig. 6, 618, Frank); and
output, responsive to the request and to the application, at least the portion of the difference data published to the change event stream (Fig. 6, 618, Frank).
Frank discloses all the limitations as discussed above including: receive, from the application, a request identifying at least the portion of the difference data published to the change event stream that is to be output to the application. However, Frank does not expressly disclose: a subscription request. Wang discloses: a subscription request identifies one or more filters to be applied to the difference data published to the stream in order to identify at least the portion of the data ([0001], [0017], [0005], wherein user profile interests are examples of one or more filters as claimed; Wang). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Frank by incorporating a subscription request identifies one or more filters to be applied to the difference data published to the stream in order to identify at least the portion of the data, as disclosed by Wang, in order to be able to order disseminate information only to interested users ([0004], Wang) and eliminate redundant processing ([0012], Wang). See: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 1385, 1396 (US 2007); MPEP § 2143.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to incrementally publish the difference data to the change event stream as the difference data is obtained from the unified difference data access layer via the single application programming interface (Col. 5, lines 30-33, Frank).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system, wherein the unified difference data access layer executes within a data plane computing cluster of the computing system located in a same region as a primary source in which the two or more events occur, a computing cluster on which the two or more events occur, or a computing cluster having a lowest cost to download data that is subjected to the two or more events (Col. 2, lines 31-33, Frank).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system, wherein the two or more events include two or more backups, two or more snapshots, or two or more archives (Col. 1, lines 27-39, first snapshot and second snapshot, Frank).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Frank discloses a computing system, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to publish the difference data, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to publish to enable the application to parse at least the portion of the difference data output to the application (Col. 2, lines 42-49, “DELTA MARKING STREAM—is the tracking of the delta between the production and replication site, which may contain the meta data of changed locations, the delta marking stream may be kept persistently on the journal at the production site,” Frank). However, Frank does not expressly disclose: extensible schema. Wang discloses: publish the data according to an extensible schema ([0034]-[0035], Wang); and publish the extensible schema ([0034]-[0035], Wang). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Frank by incorporating the extensible schema, as disclosed by Wang, in order to provide quicker and more efficient delivery of documents to users ([0034], Wang). See: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 1385, 1396 (US 2007); MPEP § 2143.
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adaptively schedule ingestion of one or more of metadata or content data based on one or more of a service level agreement for a primary source on which the two or more events are performed, a load on the primary source, and a change rate on the primary source ([0034], Wang).
Regarding Claim 9, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute one or more tools for connecting to one or more primary sources on which the two or more events are performed (Col. 3, lines 35-40, Frank).
Regarding Claim 10, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to publish occurrence of the two or more events to an event message queue, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to interface with the unified difference data access layer responsive to receiving a notification that at least one of the two or more events were published to the event message queue (Col. 6, lines 27-38, Frank).
Regarding Claim 11, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the difference data includes one or more of metadata descriptive of a data item within an object to which the two or more events are performed or content data of the data item within the object to which the two or more events are performed (Fig. 2, 200, Frank).
Regarding Claims 21, 22, and 23, Frank/Wang discloses a computing system, wherein each of the one or more filters identify an object type and a data type ([0008], attribute, comparison, value; [0016], element name and attribute of the start event; [0043], start Document, start Element, end Element; [0057], wherein event type and element name are examples of object type claimed; and wherein attributes are examples of data item type claimed; Wang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the applied art fails to disclose "receive, from an application, a subscription request to access at least a portion of the difference data published to the change event stream, wherein the subscription request identifies one or more filters to be applied to the difference data published to the change event stream in order to identify at least the portion of the difference data."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applied art does disclose: receive, from an application, a subscription request to access at least a portion of the difference data published to the change event stream, wherein the subscription request identifies one or more filters to be applied to the difference data published to the change event stream in order to identify at least the portion of the difference data (Fig. 6, 618, Frank; and [0001], [0017], [0005], wherein user profile interests are examples of one or more filters as claimed; Wang).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA B COLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. 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.
/GIOVANNA B COLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights