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 .
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 25 June 2026, claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 are amended per Applicant's request. No claims were cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised non-statutory double patenting rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 June 2026 with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of the claims (see Remarks, p. 8) have been fully considered. As Applicant has not filed the Terminal Disclaimer, the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 June 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 9-11) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on Vahlis’ Bloom Filter (BF) and query results as being the potential mapping to the “table of certification results” (Remarks, p. 9-10). The Examiner agrees that these do not map to a table of certification results.
However, neither of these were used in rejecting the claimed feature. Rather, Vahlis’ access policy verification module 224 generated indications of some of the data being permitted and some of the data not being permitted. This indication was mapped to the “[table of] certification results”.
Thus, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant that Vahlis does not disclose the claimed feature(s); however, the Examiner agrees with Applicant that neither Vahlis’ Bloom Filter or query results R teaches or suggests the claimed “table of certification results”. However, another section of Vahlis was emphasized for this, as elaborated in the 103 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “…wherein the data certification result indicates, for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules…” This does not appear to be grammatically in line with the amendments, e.g., this should either be “wherein the table of [[data]] certification results indicates, for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules”; or it should be “wherein each of the data certification results indicates whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules…” (if Applicant had wanted to be clear with respect to this taking place for each record being represented within the data certification results); or “wherein the data certification result indicates whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,392,715 B1 (hereinafter referred to as the “’715 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 8, and 15 represent overlapping and broader limitations than those found in the ’715 patent (more specifically, the ’715 patent having additional limitations concerning generating a “limited consumer view definition” based on the certification results and shared view definition, whereas the present claims are silent on this feature).
Additionally, the ’715 patent “determines first rules associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database”, whereas the present independent claims implicitly “obtains” this information, e.g., obtaining certification results that are “based on one or more first rules that specify criteria, associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform, that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database”.
However, both the ’715 patent’s independent claims and the present independent claims provide access to a first portion of the records in compliance with the criteria of the first rules and exclude a second portion of the records not in compliance with the criteria of the first rules, and cause a first virtual warehouse to execute a query on the first portion of the records in compliance with the criteria of the one or more first rules.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the present application recite substantially similar limitations to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the ’664 patent, with the exception of claims 3, 10, and 17 in both sets of claims, in which the present application’s claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “cause, based on the table of second certification results, the first virtual warehouse to provide access to a third portion of the records”. The ’715 patent instead recites the limitation “generate, based on the second table of certification results, a [sic] updated limited consumer view definition”, and thus represents a narrower claim than that of the present application. However, given that providing access to a “third portion of the records” is another manner of stating the limitation of providing access to certain portions of the records (e.g., as already seen in the independent claims of the ’715 patent), thus, dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 of the ’715 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,599,664 B1 (hereinafter referred to as the “’664 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 8, and 15 represent overlapping and broader limitations than those found in the ’664 patent (more specifically, the ’664 patent having additional limitations concerning generating a “limited consumer view definition” based on those certification results, whereas the present claims are silent on this feature).
Additionally, the ’664 patent “determines first rules associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database”, whereas the present independent claims implicitly “obtains” this information, e.g., obtaining certification results that are “based on one or more first rules that specify criteria, associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform, that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database”.
However, both the ’664 patent’s independent claims and the present independent claims provide access to a first portion of the records in compliance with the criteria of the first rules and exclude a second portion of the records not in compliance with the criteria of the first rules, and cause a first virtual warehouse to execute a query on the first portion of the records in compliance with the criteria of the one or more first rules.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the present application recite substantially similar limitations to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the ’664 patent, with the exception of claims 3, 10, and 17 in both sets of claims, in which the present application’s claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “cause, based on the table of second certification results, the first virtual warehouse to provide access to a third portion of the records”. The ’664 patent instead recites the limitation “generate, based on the second table of certification results, a [sic] updated limited consumer view definition”, and thus represents a narrower claim than that of the present application. However, given that providing access to a “third portion of the records” is another manner of stating the limitation of providing access to certain portions of the records (e.g., as already seen in the independent claims of the ’664 patent), thus, dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 of the ’664 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,156 B2 (hereinafter referred to as the “’156 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 8, and 15 represent overlapping and broader limitations than those found in the ’156 patent’s independent claims. In particular, the present application is more specific with regards to the table of certification results being “for a plurality of users”, and elaborates that it indicates, for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules elaborates on the table of certification results use of a table (however, this is already implied in the ’156 patent).
Additionally, the ’156 patent “determines first rules associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database”, whereas the present independent claims implicitly “obtains” this information, e.g., obtaining certification results that are “based on one or more first rules that specify criteria, associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform, that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database”.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the present application recite substantially similar limitations to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the ’156 patent.
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 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlis et al. (“Vahlis”) (US 2015/0150075 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Vahlis teaches A data sharing platform configured to provide access to records of a database stored on a database server (Vahlis, [0029-0033], where the disclosed system includes database 145 provided by a third-party server and/or network 140 not directly controlled by a data owner 105 who uploaded the secured data to the third party network 140 to create the secured third-party database 145, and data may be requested to be accessed by a requesting entity 110 who may not be trusted by (or otherwise be beyond the control of) the data owner), the data sharing platform comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the data sharing platform to (Vahlis, [Claim 10], where the disclosed system includes a processor and memory coupled to the processor that comprises computer readable program code embodied in the memory that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the disclosed operations):
obtain, based on one or more first rules that specify criteria, associated with consumer permissions to access the database via a cloud database platform, that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database, a table of certification results, for a plurality of users, that indicates, for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules, by causing the data sharing platform to: generate a data certification result for each record stored by the database based on determining, for each record, whether a given record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules based on one or more fields of the given record, wherein the data certification result indicates, for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules (Vahlis, [0037-0038] and [0041-0042], where data access policy verification module 224 receives and compares each of the records within query result R (comprising data d matching query q), to data access policies associated with the data d (i.e., “determining, for each record, whether a given record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules based on one or more fields of the given record”). Note that it is possible for the query q to retrieve all database records, e.g., the SQL command “SELECT * FROM Database_DB” (i.e., “generate a data certification result for each record stored by the database”). Furthermore, note that data access policies associated with the data d may correspond to a plurality of users; see, e.g., Vahlis, [0050] and [0062] (i.e., “…a table of certification results, for a plurality of users…”).
The verification module 224 returns an indication that some of the data included in the query result matches database record(s) to which the requesting entity 110 is permitted to access, while other data do not correspond to database record(s) to which the requesting entity 110 is permitted to access (i.e., “obtain, based on one or more first rules that specify criteria, associated with consumer permissions to access the database…that limit consumer access to the records stored by the database, … certification results, for a plurality of users, that indicates, for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules”). The query result delivery control module 231 transmits matching data complying with the access policy while preventing transmission of other data not complying with the access policy. Therefore, the verification module implicitly returns “the data certification result [indicating], for each record, whether the record satisfies the criteria of the one or more first rules”).
Although Vahlis does not appear to explicitly state that a table of indication(s) is generated, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vahlis to have the verification module 224’s indication be a table of indications as claimed (i.e., the claimed “table of data certification results”) with the motivation of faster search and retrieval through structured representation of related data (as tables preserve relationships between fields), and such that re-computations of determining which data can be transmitted, may be avoided, e.g., by simply utilizing the results of the verification module 224’s processing); and
cause, based on a query, based on the table of certification results, and without modifying the records stored by the database, … by the cloud database platform to provide access to a first portion of the records in compliance with the criteria of the one or more first rules and exclude a second portion of the records not in compliance with the criteria of the one or more first rules (Vahlis, [0042], where query result delivery control module 231 allows transmission of the matching data (which complies with the access policy) while preventing transmission of the other data (which does not comply with the access policy, e.g., based on results from data access policy verification module 224 that indicated some of the data included in the query result matched database record(s) to which the requesting entity 110 is permitted to access, while others do not).
Although Vahlis does not appear to explicitly state that “a first virtual warehouse provided [by the cloud database platform]” is what provides access, Vahlis discloses in [0068] that “a cloud storage solution…can ensure that the requesting entity doesn’t receive data beyond that which it is entitled to under the corresponding access policy”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been suggested by Vahlis’ disclosure to modify Vahlis such that a first virtual warehouse is provided on top of Vahlis’ disclosed cloud database platform, with the motivation of scalability, high reliability, and high availability, and an ability to support multiple disparate/independent workloads1,2,3, thereby supporting high parallel operations, i.e., an increased ability to handle large workloads, and completing operations faster.
Regarding claim 2: Vahlis teaches The data sharing platform of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the data sharing platform to:
cause output of a result of the query to a consumer authorized to access the database (Vahlis, [0042], where an data access policy verification module 224 indicates that some of the data included in the query result matches database record(s) to which the requesting entity 110 is permitted to access, while others do not correspond to database record(s) to which the requesting entity 110 is permitted to access. The query result delivery control module 231 may then allow transmission of the matching data (which complies with the access policy) while preventing transmission of the other data (which does not comply with the access policy.
Additionally, the query result delivery control module 231 allows transmission of the data to the requesting entity 110 when the query result matches record(s) in the secure database 145 to which the requesting entity 110 is permitted to access (based on the comparison with the access policy representation). Note that because an entity is permitted to access records in a database, this discloses the claimed limitation of “a consumer authorized to access the database”).
Regarding claim 5: Vahlis teaches The data sharing platform of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the data sharing platform to prevent, based on at least one rule of the one or more first rules, output of values outside of a predefined range specified by the at least one rule of the one or more first rules (Vahlis, [0037], where the access policy representation identifies particular records stored in the database to which the requesting entity 110 is authorized to access).
Although Vahlis does not appear to explicitly teach that the type of information prevented from being outputted pertains to “values outside of a predefined range specified by the at least one rule of the one or more first rules”, the claimed invention does not distinguish over the prior art because the differences in the claim limitations and the prior art’s disclosure are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The prevention of data transmission would have been performed the same regardless of the specific data involved (i.e., the claimed data, Vahlis’ access authorization, or some other data). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ2d 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have referred to Vahlis’ teachings in making the claimed invention, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Vahlis teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a data sharing platform, cause the data sharing platform to provide access to records of a database stored on a database server by causing the data sharing platform to [implement the claimed steps] (Vahlis, [0026] and [Claim 10], where the disclosed system may be embodied as a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied in the medium. The medium may be, for example, magnetic, optical, a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), and CD-ROM (all examples of “non-transitory” media), where the memory (e.g., medium) may be executed by a processor to implement the disclosed steps).
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlis et al. (“Vahlis”) (US 2015/0150075 A1), in view of McGovern et al. (“McGovern”) (US 2016/0352739 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Vahlis teaches The data sharing platform of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the data sharing platform to: receive an update to the one or more first rules; obtain, based on the update to the one or more first rules, a second table of certification results; and cause, based on the second table of certification results, the first virtual warehouse to provide access to a third portion of the records.
McGovern teaches receive an update to the one or more first rules (McGovern, [0031] and [0044], where policies and/or their associated rules may be modified/updated, e.g., by an administrator who updates the previously committed policy, which defines an access action such as expressly permitting access, expressly denying access, permitting or denying access to a subset of the data, etc.);
obtain, based on the update to the one or more first rules, a second table of certification results; and cause, based on the second table of certification results, the first virtual warehouse to provide access to a third portion of the records (McGovern, [0044], where modified policies/rules may be distributed, resulting in future access requests being evaluated against those updated policies/rule sets (see, e.g., McGovern, [0035], [0039], etc.). See Vahlis, [0042], with respect to generating a table of certification results, resulting in selective transmission of matching data (which complies with the access policy), while preventing transmission of the other data (which does not comply with the access policy). See Vahlis in claim 1 above with respect to “table of” certification results and “virtual warehouse”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vahlis and McGovern with the motivation of enabling an authorization server to stay current with system changes, allowing up to date policies and rule sets (McGovern, [0042]), as well as increased flexibility in how policies are applied, and making it more convenient for such policies to be automatically propagated without requiring manual intervention.
Regarding claim 6: Vahlis teaches The data sharing platform of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein at least one rule of the one or more first rules prevent output of data outside a time period specified by the at least one rule. McGovern teaches wherein at least one rule of the one or more first rules prevent output of data outside a time period specified by the at least one rule (McGovern, [0037], where an access policy may define time based conditions such as a time range when the policy is enforced, e.g., developing a policy based on time to control access at certain times. See, e.g., McGovern, [0052], where a rule set based policy restricts data access by a Device A between 10:00PM and 4:00AM EST, where a broker determines that the data request from Device A at 11:00PM EST violates the logic provided in the rule set and accordingly denies the data request, preventing the endpoint device 430 from receiving the requested data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vahlis and McGovern with the motivation of enhancing security, e.g., preventing malicious activity that is likely to occur within certain time frames/windows.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlis et al. (“Vahlis”) (US 2015/0150075 A1), in view of Ho et al. (“Ho”) (US 2013/0144901 A1).
Regarding claim 4: Vahlis teaches The data sharing platform of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the data sharing platform to obtain the table of certification results by further causing the data sharing platform to: add, to the table of certification results and based on at least one of the one or more first rules, an indication that a first value in a first field should be replaced with a second value.
Ho teaches add, to the table of certification results and based on at least one of the one or more first rules, an indication that a first value in a first field should be replaced with a second value (Ho, [0037], where when a redaction policy is established, the redaction policy is analyzed to determine all of the columns to which the redaction policy potentially applies, where each column to which a redaction policy applies has a bit or flag associated with that column responsively set to “true” to indicate that some redaction policy applies to that column (i.e., “add…an indication that a first value in a first field should be replaced with a second value”). See Ho, [0034], where a redaction policy may be applied only to users having certain specified user identities, or to all users except those having certain specified user identities (i.e., “based on at least one of the one or more first rules”). See Ho, [0042-0044], where data redacted from each row may be replaced by a different random value (i.e., “a first value in a first field should be replaced with a second value”). See Vahlis in claim 1 above with respect to “the table of certification results”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vahlis and Ho with the motivation of masking or redacting potentially security sensitive data (Ho, [0008]), allowing greater customization in terms of authorized users and unauthorized users, and reducing slowdowns in attempting to perform database operations on redacted data (see, e.g., Ho, [0008], [0013], and [0042-0044]).
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlis et al. (“Vahlis”) (US 2015/0150075 A1), in view of Brannon et al. (“Brannon”) (US 2022/0043935 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Vahlis teaches The data sharing platform of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more first rules is configured to cause output of an alert based on a determination that more than a predetermined percentage of the records is not output based on the one or more first rules.
Brannon teaches wherein at least one of the one or more first rules is configured to cause output of an alert based on a determination that more than a predetermined percentage of the records is not output based on the one or more first rules (Brannon, [0004] and [0064], where the system generates notifications when a particular outlier or unusual events occur in analyzing a request, e.g., the system determines the redacted portion of data in a request exceeds a certain threshold percentage of the total amount of data or total amount of request content, the system may not process that request at all. The system may inform the user submitting the request that the redacted data represents a portion of the data greater than a threshold, and that the request was not processed. See Vahlis in claim 1 above with respect to the “one or more first rules”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vahlis and Brannon with the motivation of avoiding devoting resources to processing extraneous data, which can degrade system performance through the wasteful expenditure of resources, the provision of an inaccurate or incomplete request to the response, or both (Brannon, [0002]).
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
27 September 2026
1 Vittal. “Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Consider Snowflake for Data Warehousing”, at [bullet points 2 and 3].
2 Parker. “Introducing Snowflake: Cloud-Based Data Warehousing”, at [“Snowflake Explained”], [“Such Scalability. Wow”], and [“Testing the Waters”].
3 Stitch. “5 steps for choosing a cloud data warehouse”, at [“Cloud data warehouses: What they have in common”].
