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
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed August 6, 2026 in response to PTO Office Action dated April 16, 2026. The applicant’s remarks and amendment to the specification and/or claims were considered with the results that follow.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination in this application. In response to the last Office Action, claims 3-8, 10-16, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 recites “delete any objects”, however line 4 recites “deleting…a plurality of objects”. The first phrase corresponds to any non-negative number, however the second phrase asserts that at least two objects are to be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yelovitch et al. US# 2020/03202542).
Regarding claim 1, Yelovitch et al. teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by an object storage system, a request to delete any objects matching a key pattern from a bucket of the object storage system; and deleting, in response to the request, a plurality of objects matching the key pattern from the bucket of the object storage system [para 0028, lines 1-2: AWS S3; para 0036, Tables 1 and 2 (operations DeleteObject and DeleteObjectversion); Yelovitch et al. teaches use of the AWS S3:DeleteObject and s3:deleteObjectVersion. However, Yelovitch et al. does not explicitly recite how these two operations perform. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the AWS command S3:DeleteObject, when sent and initiated by the storage system, removes an object or objects from a bucket based on an object key matching the pattern, or key, specified in the command argument. Supplemental references have been provided to further explain the operation, including at least DeleteObjects and GetObject].
Regarding claim 2, Yelovitch et al. teaches receiving, while deleting the plurality of objects is in progress, an operation associated with an object key matching the key pattern; and denying the operation in response to the object key matching the key pattern [0028, lines 1-2: AWS S3; Yelovitch teaches inclusion of commands of AWS S3, including that of DeleteObject and GetObject, where one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that GetObject is used for getting objects from S3 buckets, and that for concurrent DeleteObject and GetObject operations, if DeleteObject concludes before GetObject finishes, GetObject will be not retrieve the data and return an error].
Regarding claim 3, Yelovitch et al. teaches wherein the request includes an associated revision value and wherein deleting the plurality of objects matching the key pattern comprises (preamble): deleting the plurality of objects matching the key pattern and having a revision value less than the associated revision value [0036, Tables 1&2; s3:DeleteObjectVersion; the key pattern and revision value (both of which are not positively described) correspond to the object version].
Regarding claim 4, Yelovitch et al. teaches further comprising: incrementing a stored revision value in response to receiving the request, wherein associated
other revision value is equal to the incremented stored revision value [each iteration of DeleteObjectVersion may be iteratively increased on subsequent uses of the operation].
Regarding claim 5, Yelovitch et al. teaches further comprising: allowing, while deleting the plurality of objects is in progress, one or more object storage operations targeting the bucket [as one of ordinary skill would recognize, a GetObject to one object and a DeleteObject or DeleteObjectVersion to a different object would be allowed to occur concurrently].
Regarding claim 6, Yelovitch et al. teaches further comprising: receiving, while deleting the plurality of objects is in progress, an operation targeting an object stored in the bucket having an object key matching the key pattern [0028, lines 1-2: AWS S3; Yelovitch teaches inclusion of commands of AWS S3, including that of DeleteObject and GetObject, where one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that GetObject is used for getting objects from S3 buckets, and that for concurrent DeleteObject and GetObject operations, if DeleteObject concludes before GetObject finishes, GetObject will be not retrieve the data and return an error].
Regarding claim 7, Yelovitch et al. teaches further comprising: allowing the operation in response to determining that a revision value of the object is greater than or equal to the associated revision value [separate DeleteObjectVersion operations with different version arguments would be allowed to occur].
Regarding claim 8, Yelovitch et al. teaches further comprising denying the operation in response to the revision value of the object being less than the associated revision value [0028, lines 1-2: AWS S3; Yelovitch teaches inclusion of commands of AWS S3, including that of DeleteObjectVersion and GetObjectVersion, where one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that GetObjectVersion is used for getting objects from S3 buckets, and that for concurrent DeleteObjectVersion and GetObjectVersion operations, if DeleteObjectVersion concludes before GetObjectVersion finishes, GetObjectVersion will be denied concluding the operation by way of not returning the object as specified by the command].
Claims 9 and 11 recite similar claim language to that of claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 10 and 18 recite similar claim language to that of claim 2, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claims 11 and 19 recite similar claim language to that of claim 3, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claims 12 and 20 recite similar claim language to that of claim 4, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 13 recites similar claim language to that of claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 14 recites similar claim language to that of claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 15 recites similar claim language to that of claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 16 recites similar claim language to that of claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 9, paragraph 3 of the response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim language has not set forth what constitutes a key pattern, only that a “key pattern” is used for the matching of objects to be deleted. A broad and reasonable interpretation of the claim language as filed would include where the “key pattern” may be interpreted as an object version, where all objects of a certain object version may be deleted as taught by Yelovitch et al. [para. 0036]. Furthermore, Applicant has also argued that “requiring a request to delete any objects matching a key pattern” (emphasis added), although a “requiring” step or operation has not been claimed nor what enacted the “requiring” to occur.
Applicant has further argued on page 9 regarding the prior art not explicitly reciting the operations of paragraph [0036]. The prior art of Yanovitch et al. clearly indicates that the commands are part of the AWS platform. The Examiner set forth this assertion in the Office Action, attached supplemental references to better explain the operations of [0036], and noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized how AWS commands behave as they are well known and well established in the art . Applicant has indicated that the Examiner asserted that “one of ordinary skill in the art would inherently recognize…”(emphasis added). An inherency argument was not set forth by the Examiner.
Applicant has further argued on page 10, paragraph 1, that the prior art of Yelovitch teaches “keys” in paragraph [0026] to identify individual objects and commands to delete individual objects or object versions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has associated the term “key” in the prior art with the phrase “key pattern” as recited in the claim language. The Examiner did not make this word association in the prior art rejection. Furthermore, as noted above, the phrase “key pattern” was not explicitly defined in the claim language and thus open to a broad and reasonable interpretation of the phrase as recited. Applicant has further argued that “…deleting a plurality of objects matching a key pattern from a bucket of an object storage system is not inherently taught by Yelovitch”. As noted above, the Examiner did not make an indication of inherency.
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 Brian R. Peugh whose telephone number is (571) 272-4199. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez, phone number 571-270-5935, can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
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).
/BRIAN R PEUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights