Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 8-27 are pending in this office action. This action is responsive to Applicant’s application filed 04/01/205.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a Continuation of 18458066 , filed 08/29/2023 ,now U.S. Patent # 12254028 claims foreign priority to 202311047328, filed 07/13/2023 is acknowledged.
Since the Continuation application relied on part of the priority document (Continuation), the claim of priority will be considered on a claim-by-claim basis. The priority date of the instant application is at least 04/01/205 (the filing date), but depending upon the specific material claimed, could be as early as 04/01/205.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The references listed in the IDS filed 03/17/2025 has been considered. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
5. Claims 8-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,028. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
The following table shows the claims 8-14 in Instant Application that are rejected by corresponding claim(s) 1-7 in US Patent No. 12,147,412.
Instant Application
US 12,254,028
8. A method performed by a partitioning and labeling platform, comprising:
receiving a document file at a data capture service;
passing at least a portion of the document file as a byte stream to a unit extraction service, the unit extraction service performing steps of:
standardizing the byte stream into a string file;
determining a first logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein the first logical partition separation indicator is for a first partition level in a partition hierarchy, the first logical partition separation indicator comprising a first text separator;
setting a first variable value to a value of the first logical partition separation indicator;
determining a second logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein
the second logical partition separation indicator is for a second partition level in the partition hierarchy, the second logical partition separation indicator comprising a second text separator;
setting a second variable value to a value of the second logical partition separation indicator;
writing the first variable value to a data structure, wherein the data structure has a standardized format;
writing the second variable value to the data structure;
persisting the data structure to a search index; and
clearing the first variable value and the second variable value.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein writing the first variable value to the data structure and writing the second variable value to the data structure is triggered by determining the third
logical partition separation indicator in the string file.
10. The method of claim 8, further comprising:
setting the first variable value to a value of the third logical partition separation indicator.
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the data structure is a key-value data structure.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the key-value data structure is formatted as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the first variable value is written to the data structure as a value that corresponds to a first key, and wherein the first key indicates a relatively higher partition level in the partition hierarchy with respect to the second partition level in the partition hierarchy.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the second variable value is written to the data structure as a value that corresponds to a second key, and wherein the second variable value is text of a paragraph in the string file.
1. A method performed by a partitioning and labeling platform, comprising:
receiving a document file at a data capture service;
passing at least a portion of the document file as a byte stream to a unit extraction service, the unit extraction service performing steps of:
standardizing the byte stream into a string file;
determining a first logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein the first logical partition separation indicator is for a first partition level in a partition hierarchy, the first logical partition separation indicator comprising a first text separator;
setting a first variable value to a value of the first logical partition separation indicator;
determining a second logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein the second logical partition separation indicator is for a second partition level in the partition hierarchy, the second logical partition separation indicator comprising a second text separator;
setting a second variable value to a value of the second logical partition separation indicator;
determining a third logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein the third logical partition separation indicator is for the first partition level in the partition hierarchy, the third logical partition separation indicator comprising a third text separator;
writing the first variable value to a data structure, wherein the data structure has a standardized format;
writing the second variable value to the data structure;
persisting the data structure to a search index; and
clearing the first variable value and the second variable value.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein writing the first variable value to the data structure and writing the second variable value to the data structure is triggered by determining the third logical partition separation indicator in the string file.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
setting the first variable value to a value of the third logical partition separation indicator.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the data structure is a key-value data structure.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the key-value data structure is formatted as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the first variable value is written to the data structure as a value that corresponds to a first key, and wherein the first key indicates a relatively higher partition level in the partition hierarchy with respect to the second partition level in the partition hierarchy.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the second variable value is written to the data structure as a value that corresponds to a second key, and wherein the second variable value is text of a paragraph in the string file.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
After analyzing the language of the claims, it is clear that claims 8-27 are merely an obvious variation of claims 1-7 of US Patent No. 12,147,412. It is clear that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Therefore, these two sets of claims are not patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
6. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dentzer (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0173771 A1, hereinafter “Dentzer”) in view of Mallavarapu (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0222106 A1, hereinafter “Mallavarapu”) and Sivasubramanian et al. (US Patent No. 8,572,091 B1, hereinafter “Sivasubramanian”).
As to Claim 8, Dentzer teaches the claimed limitations:
“A method performed by a partitioning and labeling platform, comprising:” as a method consistent with some embodiments, for optimizing data access based on a database data aging functionality. The following description refers to elements which elements are referred to using the same identifiers (paragraph 0054).
“receiving a document file at a data capture service” as a query for data from a view of a database is received by a generic infrastructure enhanced with the ability to process application-specific logic for a priori historical data restriction when accessing the database. Furthermore, the received query contains at least one filtering parameter for retrieval of the data from the database (paragraph 0055).
“passing at least a portion of the document file as a byte stream to a unit extraction service, the unit extraction service performing steps of:” as although the data may be stored redundantly at different levels (e.g., partitions) of a storage hierarchy, the cost of storing the data may be optimized by storing only the most current data in the top level(s) of the storage hierarchy. (paragraph 0004). A configured data residence period, satisfaction of conditions as part of aging rules, fulfillment of application and process-specific checks, and/or passing any veto checks for aging (paragraph 0018). String manipulation functions (paragraph 0113).
“determining a first logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein the first logical partition separation indicator is for a first partition level in a partition hierarchy, the first logical partition separation indicator comprising a first text separator” as although the data may be stored redundantly at different levels (e.g., partitions) of a storage hierarchy, the cost of storing the data may be optimized by storing only the most current data in the top level(s) of the storage hierarchy. After an aging date/value has been assigned to particular software object data and an appropriate storage location (e.g., database partition) has been determined, the data may be appropriately queried/accessed (paragraph 0004). An aging run is a regularly executed job that examines tables of active aging objects, determines current records that are mature enough according to: a configured data residence period, satisfaction of conditions as part of aging rules, fulfillment of application and process-specific checks, and/or passing any veto checks for aging (paragraph 0018). String manipulation functions (paragraph 0113).
“setting a first variable value to a value of the first logical partition separation indicator” as at operation, determining aging object restriction dates for each of the multiple aging objects based on the respective rule restriction dates for each of the multiple aging objects, e.g., based on the respective restriction rules associated with each of the multiple aging objects and, at operation, setting the restriction date for the query to the earliest of the aging object restriction dates for each of the multiple aging objects (paragraph 0060).
“determining a second logical partition separation indicator in the string file, wherein the second logical partition separation indicator is for a second partition level in the partition hierarchy, the second logical partition separation indicator comprising a second text separator” as a conservative approach for combining restriction dates associated with each of the views is to determine a view restriction date for each of the involved views individually and then use the minimum of the view restriction dates as the overall restriction date in the single SQL request. Some associations between views, however, may ensure that the connected rows of the associated views have the same restriction date for a common aging object and the restriction date for this aging object may be determined for one view only since it also holds for the other view (paragraphs 0063-0064).
“setting a second variable value to a value of the second logical partition separation indicator” as for each of the multiple views, analyzing a definition of the view to determine a table of the database that contributes to the view and an aging object associated with the table; at operation, determining view restriction dates for each of the multiple views based on the respective aging object restriction dates for each of the plurality of aging objects associated with the table that contributes to the view; and, at operation, setting the restriction date of query to the earliest of the view restriction dates (paragraph 0065). The system wherein to determine the restriction date based on the restriction rule the operations further comprise: determining that the filtering parameter comprises an earliest aging date for an instance of the aging object; and setting the restriction date to the earliest aging date (paragraph 0083).
“clearing the first variable value and the second variable value” as the user may specify filter values for columns of the corresponding database views with proper business semantics from which a restriction to access aged data from database may be formulated. Furthermore, in order to ensure use of these columns in the query from user, the columns may be made mandatory in the user interface of application or query tool and the filters for these columns may be pre-filled with suitable default values. The suitable default values may be chosen to ensure good response times while allowing the user to change the default values for the filters. Importantly, the user is not confronted with a decision regarding a technical partition date of partitions of database (paragraphs 0005, 0025-0026, 0032).
Dentzer does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “writing the first variable value to a data structure, wherein the data structure has a standardized format; writing the second variable value to the data structure has a standardized format”
Mallavarapu teaches variants of the technology can enable different code blocks of the workflow to be heterogeneous (e.g., written in different languages, written by different authors), as long as each code block conforms to a standard run state storage interface (e.g., frames or block states conforming to a standard format). For example, the run state can be translated to and from a representation in a mother language and/or to and from a universal representation (e.g., JavaScript Object Notation). Workflow language heterogeneity can be further enabled by assigning persistent identifiers to each code block, such that the code block can be globally identifiable (paragraphs 0035, 0094). During execution, each input and/or output variable can be bound to a value. The value can include alphanumeric values, symbolic values, a hashmap, an array of values, and/or otherwise defined. The values can be specific to a code block execution instance, specific to a run, specific to a run storage instance, globally shared, or otherwise shared. The values can be defined through run execution, code block execution, by an external system, and/or otherwise defined. The values can be bound to variables by bindings, which bind a partition value with the partition variable. The bindings can be: an association, an assignment, a pointer, a mapping, and/or be any other suitable data structure. In variants, the bindings can be stored in the run storage (paragraphs 0060-0061).
Dentzer does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “text separator; persisting the data structure to a search index; standardizing the byte stream into a string file”.
Sivasubramanian teaches N represents a number, S represents a string, NS represents a set of numbers, and SS represents a set of strings. In various embodiments, attributes of type string may be part of a key or part of an index, and the maximum size of a string may be limited by the size of an index key (e.g., 1024 bytes cumulative for a range key or 2048 bytes for each hash key) (e.g., standardizing the byte stream) or the item size. In various embodiments, attributes of type "number" may be used to store exact-value decimal and integers, and may have variable width encoding. In some embodiments, the amount of space that can be occupied by an attribute of this type may be limited to a pre-determined amount (column 8, lines 37-62). The partitioning of the user's data may be handled by the system, and abstracted from the user, the primary key used for indexing data may consist of a single attribute hash key. In other embodiments, the primary key used for indexing and/or partitioning data may be a composite key comprising a hash key component and another component, sometimes referred to herein as a range key component, in various embodiments, queries may be supported against indexed attributes, and a full table scan function may be provided (abstract, column 9, lines 13-45). The data plane APIs provided by the data storage service (and/or the underlying system) may be used to perform item-level operations, such as storing, deleting, retrieving, and/or updating items and/or their attributes, or performing index-based search-type operations across multiple items in a table, such as queries and scans (column 14, lines 35-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dentzer, Mallavarapu and Sivasubramanian before him/her, to modify Dentzer writing the first variable value to a data structure, wherein the data structure has a standardized format because that would allow the run state object to be extremely small instead of storing the entire compiled workflow code, the run state object only needs to store identifiers, values, and variables as taught by Mallavarapu (paragraph 0034). Or persisting the data structure to a search index provide a high level of durability and availability through replication may not impose a maximum table size or may not require client-side partitioning as taught by Sivasubramanian (column 2, line 57 to column 3, line 14).
As to Claim 9, Dentzer teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein writing the first variable value to the data structure and writing the second variable value to the data structure is triggered by determining the third logical partition separation indicator in the string file” as (paragraph 0047).
Mallavarapu teaches (paragraphs 0091, 0099).
Sivasubramanian teaches (column 15, lines 15-29), (column 20, line 65 to column 21, line 17, column 49, lines 31-50).
As to Claim 10, Dentzer teaches the claimed limitations:
“setting the first variable value to a value of the third logical partition separation indicator” as (paragraphs 0060, 0065, 0083, 0086-0087).
As to Claim 11, Dentzer teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the data structure is a key-value data structure” as (paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0063-0065).
As to Claim 12, Dentzer does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein the key-value data structure is formatted as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).
Mallavarapu teaches (paragraphs 0035, 0094).
Sivasubramanian teaches (column 14, line 58 to column 15, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dentzer, Mallavarapu and Sivasubramanian before him/her, to modify Dentzer data structure is formatted as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) because that would allow the run state object to be extremely small instead of storing the entire compiled workflow code, the run state object only needs to store identifiers, values, and variables as taught by Mallavarapu (paragraph 0034). Or provide a high level of durability and availability through replication may not impose a maximum table size or may not require client-side partitioning as taught by Sivasubramanian (column 2, line 57 to column 3, line 14).
As to Claim 13, Dentzer teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the first variable value is written to the data structure as a value that corresponds to a first key, and wherein the first key indicates a relatively higher partition level in the partition hierarchy with respect to the second partition level in the partition hierarchy” as (paragraphs 0003-0005, 0023).
Mallavarapu teaches (paragraphs 0064, 0115, 0181).
Sivasubramanian teaches (column 58, line 44 to column 59, line 12).
As to Claim 14, Dentzer teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the second variable value is written to the data structure as a value that corresponds to a second key, and wherein the second variable value is text of a paragraph in the string file” as (paragraphs 0113, 0128).
Mallavarapu teaches (paragraph 0046).
Sivasubramanian teaches (column 7, line 50 to column 9, line 44).
As to claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 8-14. In addition, Dentzer teaches a method consistent with some embodiments, for optimizing data access based on a database data aging functionality (paragraph 0054). Therefore, these claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 8-14.
As to claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 8-13. In addition, Dentzer teaches a method consistent with some embodiments, for optimizing data access based on a database data aging functionality (paragraph 0054). Therefore, these claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 8-13.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hwa whose telephone number is 571-270-1285 or email address james.hwa@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am – 5:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on 571-272-3906. 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 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.
03/15/2026
/SHYUE JIUNN HWA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156