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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is issued in response to Application filed March 2, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,484. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the distinctions are variations of each other and the claims of the instant application are fully encompassed within claims 1-15 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,484.
Please see graph below for mapping:
19/067,911 12,242,484
1. A method for data access, comprising:
identifying a set of tables in a database to be accessed by an application;
identifying first and second application programming interface (API) calls having different, respective access properties for accessing records in the tables via an API;
counting, by a processor, respective numbers of the records in the tables;
partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets responsively to the respective numbers;
accessing the records in the first subset of the tables by conveying, by the application, the first API call to the API; and
accessing the records in the second subset of the tables by conveying, by the application, the second API call to the API.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given table comprises a customer relationship management data file.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein accessing the records in the first and the second subsets comprises generating a set of backup files for the set of tables.
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein generating a given backup file comprises storing, to the given backup file, a link to a previously generated backup file.
5. The method according to claim 3, wherein the backup comprise structured text files.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the structured text files comprise comma-separated (CSV) files.
7. The method according to claim 5, and further comprising compressing a given structured text file so as to generate a compressed backup file.
8. The method according to claim 3, wherein accessing, in a given table, the records with a given access property comprises conveying a request for one or more attribute values in one or more records in the given table, receiving the requested attribute values, and saving the received attribute values to a corresponding set of one or more records in a given backup file.
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein accessing, in a given table, the records with a given access property comprises conveying a request to generate a given backup file for a given table.
10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the request to generate a given backup file for a given table comprises a request to generate a plurality of backup files that store copies of attribute values in respective subsets of the records in the given table.
11. The method according to claim 10, and further comprising conveying a request to combine the plurality of backup files into a single combined backup file.
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second subsets comprise disjoint subsets of the tables.
13. The method according to claim 12, wherein the disjoint subsets cover the set of tables.
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first API call has an API call quota, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the quota.
15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the tables comprise table attributes, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the respective table attributes of the tables.
16. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first API call is a bulk API call, and the second API call is a REST API call.
1. A method for data access, comprising:
identifying a set of tables in a database to be accessed by an application;
identifying first and second application programming interface (API) calls having different, respective access properties for accessing records in the tables via an API;
counting, by a processor, respective numbers of the records in the tables;
partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets responsively to the respective numbers, such that the first subset comprises a first group of the tables containing respective numbers of records that are greater than a specified threshold, while the second subset comprises a second group of the tables containing respective numbers of the records that are less than the specified threshold;
accessing the records in the first subset of the tables by conveying, by the application, the first API call to the API; and
accessing the records in the second subset of the tables by conveying, by the application, the second API call to the API.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein a given table comprises a customer relationship management data file.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein accessing the records in the first and the second subsets comprises generating a set of backup files for the set of tables.
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein generating a given backup file comprises storing, to the given backup file, a link to a previously generated backup file.
5. The method according to claim 3, wherein the backup files comprise structured text files.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the structured text files comprise comma-separated (CSV) files.
7. The method according to claim 5, and further comprising compressing a given structured text file so as to generate a compressed backup file.
8. The method according to claim 3, wherein accessing, in a given table, the records with a given access property comprises conveying a request for one or more attribute values in one or more records in the given table, receiving the requested attribute values, and saving the received attribute values to a corresponding set of one or more records in a given backup file.
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein accessing, in a given table, the records with a given access property comprises conveying a request to generate a given backup file for a given table.
10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the request to generate a given backup file for a given table comprises a request to generate a plurality of backup files that store copies of attribute values in respective subsets of the records in the given table.
11. The method according to claim 10, and further comprising conveying a request to combine the plurality of backup files into a single combined backup file.
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second subsets comprise disjoint subsets of the tables.
13. The method according to claim 12, wherein the disjoint subsets cover the set of tables.
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first API call has an API call quota, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the quota.
15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the tables comprise table attributes, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the respective table attributes of the tables.
32. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first API call is a bulk API call, and the second API call is a REST API call.
More specifically, Independent Claim 1 is a method claim whose limitations are fully encompassed within Independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,484. Dependent claims 2-16 are method claims whose limitations are fully encompassed within the method of claims 2-15 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,484.
Remaining claims 17-20 of the instant application mirror corresponding claims 1, 3, and 16 within U.S. Patent No. 12,282,799.
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) 1-6, 8-10, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0191825) in view of Mathur (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0278881).
Regarding Claim 1, Chopra discloses a method for data access, comprising:
identifying a set of tables in a database to be accessed by an application (par [0090-0091], Chopra – multiple user data repositories are stored and identified, such as user A metadata repository, user B metadata repository, etc. … par [0059-0060], Chopra – the client hosts an application, wherein the application functions to control the access to the limited-access user data generated by users of the client service);
identifying first and second application programming interface (API) calls having different, respective access properties for accessing records in the tables via an API (par [0060], [0092-0096], Chopra – the application may, through API calls, provide portions of the limited-access user data to the storage or other entities with authorization access… par [0124-0125], Chopra – manager sends API calls to the application to obtain the fragmented user data associated with the protection policy event. Fragmented user data may be refer to information returned by the application that gates access to the limited-access user data repository in response to a query (e.g., an API call). The API calls may include requests for user data stored in the limited-access user data repository of the client service provider associated with a user.).
While Chopra teaches the option of separating/dividing the data structures (which can be tables, databases, or other types of data structures) based on specific information. However, Chopra is not as detailed with respect to counting, by a processor, respective numbers of the records in the tables; and partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets responsively to the respective numbers.
On the other hand, Mathur discloses counting, by a processor, respective numbers of the records in the tables (par [0025], [0035], Mathur - the composite batching engine is to manage the throughput of the online requests, and deliver the requests in multiple API formats to the OMS platform based on the throughput levels. As illustrated in FIG. 1 as the delivery of Bulk API for high throughput orders (such as a number of transaction records above a particular threshold) and SOAP API requests for low throughput orders (such as a number of transaction records below the threshold)… par [0066], Mathur –records have a low throughput if a total number of transaction records accumulated in a specified time period is less than a threshold, and records have a high throughput if a total number of transaction records accumulated in a specified time period is greater or equal to a threshold… it is understood that in order to determine the number for either a low or high throughput, a count would have occurred); and partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets responsively to the respective numbers (Fig.3, items 340 & 345; par [0035], Mathur – when the numbers are deemed low they are contained within SOAP API specific files and when the numbers are deemed high, they are contained within the Bulk API specific files). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mathur’s teachings into the Chopra system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to better manage data access metrics to fulfill a space efficiency requirement and improve load and complexity.
The combination of Chopra in view of Mathur disclose, accessing the records in the first subset of the tables by conveying, by the application, the first API call to the API (par [0079], Chopra - limited-access user data of the limited-access user data repository (136) may be stored in proprietary format that prevents other applications, users and/or other entities from reading and/or using the limited-access user data… par [0121-0126], [0129-0132], Chopra – the manager sends API calls to obtain the appropriate fragmented user data associated with the protection policy event; wherein fragmented user data may be refer to information returned by the application that gates access to the limited-access user data repository in response to a query (e.g., an API call). Thus, based on a first API call with certain access policy information, metadata records are accessed that are associated with a first user and API call); and
accessing the records in the second subset of the tables by conveying, by the application, the second API call to the API (par [0079], Chopra - limited-access user data of the limited-access user data repository (136) may be stored in proprietary format that prevents other applications, users and/or other entities from reading and/or using the limited-access user data… par [0121-0126], [0129-0132], Chopra – the manager sends API calls to obtain the appropriate fragmented user data associated with the protection policy event; wherein fragmented user data may be refer to information returned by the application that gates access to the limited-access user data repository in response to a query (e.g., an API call). Thus, based on a second API call with certain access policy information, metadata records are accessed that are associated with a second user and API call).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a given table comprises a customer relationship management data file (par [0094], [0107], Mathur – the system includes a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system; wherein a CRM database includes a table that describes different fields).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein accessing the records in the first and the second subsets comprises generating a set of backup files for the set of tables (par [0029], [0170-0172], Chopra - generating user data visualization enhanced user data backups using the obtained fragmented user data… change information of limited-access user data object(s) associated with the backup generation event is obtained).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein generating a given backup file comprises storing, to the given backup file, a link to a previously generated backup file (par [0036], [0114], Chopra – restoration services for restoring access user data to previous point-in-time using the user backup data).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein the backup comprise structured text files (par [0033], Mathur – the data format (i.e., CSV (Comma-Separated Values)), which are denoted as raw CSV files).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein the structured text files comprise comma-separated (CSV) files (par [0033], Mathur – the data format (i.e., CSV (Comma-Separated Values)), which are denoted as raw CSV files).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein accessing, in a given table, the records with a given access property comprises conveying a request for one or more attribute values in one or more records in the given table, receiving the requested attribute values, and saving the received attribute values to a corresponding set of one or more records in a given backup file (par [0233], [0343-0344], Chopra).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein accessing, in a given table, the records with a given access property comprises conveying a request to generate a given backup file for a given table (par [0048], [0124-0125], Chopra – the API calls may include requests for user data stored in the limited-access user data repository of the client service provider associated with a user. More specifically, the API calls may include requests for user data associated with a user that includes creation timestamps after the timestamp of the most recent previous backup associated with the user data. For example, a first call may request a list of object identifiers associated with user data in the limited-access user data repository).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the request to generate a given backup file for a given table comprises a request to generate a plurality of backup files that store copies of attribute values in respective subsets of the records in the given table (par [0048], [0124-0125], Chopra – the API calls may include requests for user data stored in the limited-access user data repository of the client service provider associated with a user. More specifically, the API calls may include requests for user data associated with a user that includes creation timestamps after the timestamp of the most recent previous backup associated with the user data. ).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the tables comprise table attributes, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the respective table attributes of the tables (par [0107], Mathur - each database can generally be viewed as a collection of objects, such as a set of logical tables, containing data fitted into categories).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first API call is a bulk API call, and the second API call is a REST API call (par [0035], Mathur – API requests are processed using SOAP API or REST Bulk API depending on a low and high throughput situation).
Claims 17-19 contain similar subject matter as claims 1, 3, and 16 above; and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 contains similar subject matter as claim 1 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra in view of Mathur; further in view of Kunzle (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0156238).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose the method according to claim 5, and further comprising compressing a given structured text file so as to generate a compressed backup file (par [0137], Kunzle – making the table into smaller subsets). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kunzle’s teachings into the Chopra and Mathur system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to provide economical and efficient methods to economically create backups of large datasets to reduce overall processing and maintenance costs.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, further in view of Kunzle, disclose the method according to claim 10, and further comprising conveying a request to combine the plurality of backup files into a single combined backup file (par [0112], Kunzle - each given snapshot 22 may comprise a set of CRM object snapshots 230, wherein each of the CRM object snapshots corresponds to a given CRM object 98).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, further in view of Kunzle, disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second subsets comprise disjoint subsets of the tables (par [0136-0137], Kunzle – respective disjoint subjects of normalized event records in the given raw journal).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, further in view of Kunzle, disclose the method according to claim 12, wherein the disjoint subsets cover the set of tables (par [0136-0137], Kunzle).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra in view of Mathur; further in view of Truscott (U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0141909).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Chopra in view of Mathur, disclose all of the claimed subject matter as stated above. However, Chopra and Mathur are not as detailed with respect to an API call quota, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the quota.
On the other hand, Truscott discloses an API call quota, and wherein partitioning the set of tables into first and second subsets comprises assigning one or more of the tables to the first subset responsively to the quota (par [0050], [0067], Truscott - imposing quota-based restrictions or by restricting the number of storage API calls an admin can execute. The API gateway may transform API messages (e.g., from or to XML or other formats), format responses received from the backend storage API services to REST formats). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Truscott’s teachings into the Chopra and Mathur system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to provide secure data backup and leverage API management for a more efficient system.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHELCIE L DAYE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3891. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:00pm. 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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).
Chelcie Daye
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 2100
December 27, 2025
/CHELCIE L DAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161