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 .
This communication is in response to Application filed on January 15, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Remarks
The term ‘non-transitory computer readable medium’ in claims 8-14 do not recite transmission media or signals per se. The specification expressly disavows the term from including transitory signals [see para 14].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘timestamp indexer’, ‘self purging apparatus’ and ‘file organizer’ in claims 15-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050076066 by Stakutis et al (hereafter Stakutis), and further in view of US 20200117824 by Upadhyay et al (hereafter Upadhyay).
Referring to claim 1, Stakutis discloses a self-purging database server [host system 2 includes a server, para 21; Fig 6, para 44] comprising:
a memory storing executable instructions; and an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the memory [memory 204, processor 202, para 44, Fig 6], the electronic processor configured by the executable instructions to:
obtain a storage file [versioned files 32 are stored in remote storage device 24 that is used by file retention filter 10, within host 2, when applying retention policies, para 21, Fig 1] and a timestamp index file associated with the storage file [local retention index directory 16 stores retention index files 18 that include information on the versioned files 32, para 21, Fig 1, 3], wherein the storage file includes one or more time-indexed data records [wherein the versioned files 32 are maintained in retention directory 34 in storage device 34, Fig 3], a time-indexed data record including a creation timestamp [wherein the format of each versioned file 32 recorded in each retention index file includes a version/system timestamp indicating the version of the file being retained, para 30, Fig 3] and a retention period relative to the creation timestamp [retention rules 54 specify rules pertaining to the versioned files 32 such as a maximum number of version files to maintain over a specified time period, para 27-28]; and
perform an integrated garbage collection on the storage file including automatically deleting one or more expired records in the storage file based on the timestamp index file and retention periods of the one or more expired records [wherein retention index file is processed to determine whether to purge the versioned files according to the retention rule provided for the source file, Abstract; versioned files are purged by accessing the retention index file 18 the oldest versioned file names based on sort order on timestamp 64 (Fig 4, step 124 para 34) and based on rule ‘max number per time period’, determines versioned file names that fall out of the specified time period and deletes them, para 36, Fig 5, steps 140,142,144].
Referring to claim 1, while Stakutis discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses storing versioned files [para 21], it remains silent as to the versioned files being stored in a columnar format. Upadhyay teaches converting a data set into a columnar data storage such as Parquet file format using meta-information [Abstract; para 56].
Stakutis and Upadhyay are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- storage and management of stored file data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the versioned files stored in Stakutis to store them in the columnar Parquet file format, as in Upadhyay because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because storing the versioned files of Stakutis in the columnar format of Upadhyay would enable the segregation of personal data to improve the ability of organizations to identify and apply safeguards to personal information [Upadhyay, para 13, 47].
Referring to claim 8, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a device [Stakutis, para 39]. As such, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 15, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a self-purging system [computing environment, Fig 1] comprising a timestamp indexer configured to create a timestamp index file [file retention filter 10 maintains retention index files 18, para 29, Fig 1] and a self-purging apparatus that performs an integrated garbage collection [file retention filter 10 in host 2 system manages purging of versioned files, para 34, Fig 4-5]. As such, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 7 and 14, Stakutis/Upadhyay discloses that the columnar storage file is a file in Parquet format [Upadhyay, para 56].
Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stakutis, in view of Upadhyay, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US Patent 9223790 issued to Brandwine.
Referring to claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16, Stakutis/Upadhyay discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses:
(claims 2, 9, 16) identifying a candidate file among a plurality of columnar storage files based on a timestamp index file associated with the candidate file [Stakutis, versioned files having names with the base name of source file in index file are determined based on timestamp portion of versioned file name, Fig 4, element 124, para 34]; and checking each of one or more time-indexed data records in the candidate file based on the retention period to identify one or more expired records in the candidate file [Stakutis, versioned file names are checked to determine whether they fall out of time period, Fig 5, element 142, para 36] and also discloses deleting the files with file names that fall out of the time period [Fig 5, element 144]; and
(claims 4, 11): consolidating delta files, the delta files storing changes to the one or more time-indexed data records before the integrated garbage collection [Stakutis, versioned files that are point in time copies of source file are consolidated into storage device 24, see Fig 1, element 32].
However it remains silent as to creating a new file, the new file excluding the one or more expired records from the candidate file; and wherein a new file excluding the one or more expired records is created based on the consolidated delta files.
Brandwine teaches creating memory snapshots of data storage devices that exclude data deleted at the file system level, wherein storage units marked as available to store data or “clean” in storage device are omitted from being captured in a snapshot [col. 2, lines 1-3; col. 11, lines 22-32] wherein the term “clean” signifies data that is no longer allocated and has been effectively deleted (i.e. it has expired) [col. 11, lines 52-57].
Stakutis, Upadhyay and Brandwine are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- storage and management of stored file data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the purging of versioned files in Stakutis to include the creating of snapshots of data within storage devices to exclude available or clean data, as in Brandwine because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the creation of snapshots in Brandwine as a method of tracking stored data further refines the file retaining process in Stakutis.
Referring to claims 3, 10, and 17, Stakutis/Upadhyay/Brandwine discloses that the timestamp index file associated with the candidate file includes a maximum timestamp and a minimum timestamp, and wherein to identify the candidate file, the electronic processor is further configured to: determine that the candidate file includes any time-indexed data records that include the creation timestamp that is on or between the maximum timestamp and the minimum timestamp [Stakutis, retention time period includes time periods with a specified start and end such as one day (para 27) or past hour, past week, month or year, para 28; versioned file names determined to fall within a specified time period are also purged, Fig 5, elements 146, 150, 152].
Referring to claims 5, 12, and 18, Stakutis/Upadhyay/Brandwine discloses detecting whether a trigger event occurs, wherein the trigger event includes one of a size of a delta file exceeding a threshold, a data retention policy being updated, a manual request being received, or a scheduled maintenance taking place, and responsive to detecting the trigger event occurs, perform the integrated garbage collection [Brandwine, col. 11, lines 28-32].
Referring to claims 6 and 13, Stakutis/Upadhyay/Brandwine discloses creating a new file excluding a sensitive data record based on a pre-determined deletion timestamp, wherein the pre-determined deletion timestamp is added to the sensitive data record based on a data privacy requirement [Brandwine, creating snapshots of data excluding data marked as available or clean (i.e. expired), col. 2, lines 1-3; col. 11, lines 22-32 and 52-57; Upadhyay, personal data with meta-information from different time periods, para 88].
Referring to claim 20, Stakutis /Upadhyay/Brandwine discloses an audit log repository configured to store records of deletion of the one or more expired records [Brandwine, snapshot module 104 may keep track of “clean” and “dirty” storage units in a reference table managed by block device driver 118, snapshot module 104, or in any other data structure capable of tracking information regarding storage units, col. 5, lines 44-49].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stakutis, in view of Upadhyay, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gruenheid.
Referring to claim 19, while Stakutis /Upadhyay discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses storing the one or more time-indexed data records in the columnar storage file based on timestamps [Stakutis, versioned files are stored with corresponding version timestamps, para 30, Fig 3; Upadhyay, columnar format, para 56], it remains silent as to arranging the records using techniques including at least one of OPTIMIZE and ZORDER. Gruenheid teaches utilizing Z-ordering clustering on stored files [para 126].
Stakutis, Upadhyay and Gruenheid are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- storage and management of stored file data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stakutis in its storage of versioned files with the Z-ordering clustering technique of Grueheid because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the Z-ordering clustering technique of Gruenheid would improve the data layout of the versioned files of Stakutis as well as to improve compression ratios of data and query performance by co-locating related data using z-ordering [Gruenheid, para 126].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Killian (US 9075851) directed to: data storage retention of files according to retention periods [Fig 3-4 and related portions of specification];
ESSERLIEU (US 20190057101) directed to: archival of records after expiration of tenant-defined retention periods [Abstract; Fig 4-7 and related portions of specification];
MORTON (US 20200233837) directed to: maintaining file records based on a snapshot list including garbage collection[Fig 2-5 and related portions of specification];
Qian (US 20190303483) directed to: archiving or deleting data chunks based on retention policy and retention time intervals being met [Fig 3, 5B and related portions of specification].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights