DETAILED ACTION
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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. Claims 1-20, filed on 7/21/2025, are pending in this office action.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/614,380, now US Patent 12,399,901, filed 3/22/2024, and prior-filed application 17/841,946, now US Patent 11,960,494, filed 6/16/2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449, filed 5/21/2026, are
attached to the instant Office Action.
Double Patenting
6. 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 1.321I 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) – 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, and 11 of US Patent 12,399,901, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
US Patent 12,399,901
Instant Application
Claim 1,
A method comprising:
receiving a request to read a set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage;
transmitting, to a client device, a first batch of the set of query results in response to the request, the first batch of the set of query results being a subset of the set of query results;
monitoring a time of transmission of the first batch of the set of query results;
comparing the time of transmission of the first batch of the set of query results to be received by the client device with transgresses a fast transfer threshold value;
responsive to the comparison indicating that the time of transmission of the first batch is less than the fast transfer threshold value, selecting a second batch of the set of query results, wherein a size of the second batch of the set of query results is greater than the size of the first batch;
transmitting the second batch of the set of query results to the client device;
monitoring the time of transmission of a third batch of the set of query results;
comparing the time of transmission of the third batch of the set of query results to be received by the client device with a slow transfer threshold value;
responsive to the comparison indicating that the time of transmission of the third batch is greater than the slow transfer threshold value, selecting a fourth batch of the set of query results, wherein a size of the fourth batch of the set of query results is less than the size of the third batch;
and transmitting the fourth batch of the set of query results to the client device.
Claim 1,
A method comprising:
receiving a first request to read a first set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage;
transmitting a first subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request;
in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmitting a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results;
receiving a second request to read a second set of query results stored in the cloud based data storage;
transmitting a first subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request;
and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmitting a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results.
Claim 6,
A cloud computation system comprising:
one or more computer processors;
and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the cloud computation system to:
receive a request to read a set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage;
transmit, to a client device, a first batch of the set of query results in response to the request, the first batch of the set of query results being a subset of the set of query results;
monitor a time of transmission of the first batch of the set of query results;
compare the time of transmission the first batch of the set of query results to be received by the client device with a fast transfer threshold value;
responsive to the comparison indicating that the time of transmission of the first batch is less than the fast transfer threshold value, select a second batch of the set of query results, wherein a size of the second batch of the set of query results is greater than the size of the first batch;
transmit the second batch of the set of query results to the client device; monitor the time of transmission of a third batch of the set of query results;
compare the time of transmission of the third batch of the set of query results to be received by the client device with a slow transfer threshold value;
responsive to the comparison indicating that the time of transmission of the third batch is greater than the slow transfer threshold value, select a fourth batch of the set of query results, wherein a size of the fourth batch of the set of query results is less than the size of the third batch; and transmit the fourth batch of the set of query results to the client device.
.
Claim 8,
A cloud computation system comprising:
one or more computer processors;
and one or more computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the cloud computation system to:
receive a first request to read a first set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage;
transmit a first subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request;
in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results;
receive a second request to read a second set of query results stored in the cloud based data storage;
transmit a first subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request;
and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results.
Claim 11,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a cloud computation system, cause the cloud computation system to perform operations comprising:
receive a request to read a set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage;
transmit, to a client device, a first batch of the set of query results in response to the request, the first batch of the set of query results being a subset of the set of query results;
monitor a time of transmission of the first batch of the set of query results;
compare the time of transmission of the first batch of the set of query results to be received by the client device with transgresses a fast transfer threshold value; responsive to the comparison indicating that the time of transmission of the first batch is less than the fast transfer threshold value, select a second batch of the set of query results, wherein a size of the second batch of the set of query results is greater than the size of the first batch;
transmit the second batch of the set of query results to the client device; monitor the time of transmission of a third batch of the set of query results; compare the time of transmission of the third batch of the set of query results to be received by the client device with a slow transfer threshold value;
responsive to the comparison indicating that the time of transmission of the third batch is greater than the slow transfer threshold value, select a fourth batch of the set of query results, wherein a size of the fourth batch of the set of query results is less than the size of the third batch;
and transmit the fourth batch of the set of query results to the client device.
Claim 15,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a cloud computation system, cause the cloud computation system to perform operation comprising:
receive a first request to read a first set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage;
transmit a first subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request;
in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results;
receive a second request to read a second set of query results stored in the cloud based data storage;
transmit a first subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request;
and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawar et al. (US Publication 2018/0349499 A1, cited in IDS form filed 5/21/2026) in view of Vandenberg et al. (US Publication 2017/0316007 A1).
As per claim 1, Pawar teaches A method comprising: (see Abstract)
receiving a first request to read a first set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage; (paragraph 0034, 0058, a search query is received to generate search results received in a search results interface on a social networking system, paragraph 0073, information on the social networking system residing on cloud components)
transmitting a first subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request; (paragraph 0047, 0049, 0050, search results are provided to users based on batch counters, the provided search results based on results of a particular type or above a threshold score)
transmitting a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, (paragraph 0043, 0055, 0058, search results corresponding to type or threshold time information is received)
receiving a second request to read a second set of query results stored in the cloud based data storage; (paragraph 0050, a plurality of search queries are received in a social networking system, paragraph 0073, information on the social networking system residing on cloud components)
transmitting a first subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request; (paragraph 0047, 0049, 0050, search results are provided to users based on batch counters)
transmitting a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, (paragraph 0043, 0055, 0058, search results corresponding to type or threshold time information is received)
Pawar does not explicitly indicate in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmitting a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results… and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmitting a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results.
Vandenberg teaches in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmitting a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results… and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmitting a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results. (paragraph 0044, 0077, a wait time to return search results is tracked and limits are provided on search results returned, paragraph 0084, 0089, a query divided into chunks and results returned for query chunks).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Pawar’s method of processing search queries and returning search results based on threshold time windows with Vandenberg’s ability to utilize a wait time to determine query results returned based on query chunks. This gives the user the ability to track and utilize a wait time when returning query results. The motivation for doing so would be to better respond to queries for data stored in heterogeneous data sources (paragraph 0001).
As per claim 2, Pawar teaches receiving, from a client device, a confirmation message indicating that the first subset of the first set of query results has been received by the client device; and determining the time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results to be received by the client device based on the confirmation message. (paragraph 0037, confirmation of search, paragraph 0050, 0055, threshold period of time)
As per claim 3, Pawar teaches: receiving, from a client, a third request; determining, using a processor, a result of processing the third request; and responsive to a size of the result exceeding a threshold, returning one or more signed URLs to the client. (paragraph 0034, 0058, received search query and determining results, paragraph 0034, results can be in a form of a URL specifying location of interface)
As per claim 8, Pawar teaches A cloud computation system comprising: (see Abstract)
one or more computer processors; (Figure 6 reference 602, processor)
and one or more computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the cloud computation system to: (Figure 6 reference 604, memory)
receive a first request to read a first set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage; (paragraph 0034, 0058, a search query is received to generate search results received in a search results interface on a social networking system, paragraph 0073, information on the social networking system residing on cloud components)
transmit a first subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request; (paragraph 0047, 0049, 0050, search results are provided to users based on batch counters, the provided search results based on results of a particular type or above a threshold score)
transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, (paragraph 0043, 0055, 0058, search results corresponding to type or threshold time information is received)
receive a second request to read a second set of query results stored in the cloud based data storage; (paragraph 0050, a plurality of search queries are received in a social networking system, paragraph 0073, information on the social networking system residing on cloud components)
transmit a first subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request; (paragraph 0047, 0049, 0050, search results are provided to users based on batch counters)
transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, (paragraph 0043, 0055, 0058, search results corresponding to type or threshold time information is received)
Pawar does not explicitly indicate in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results… and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results.
Vandenberg teaches in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results… and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results. (paragraph 0044, 0077, a wait time to return search results is tracked and limits are provided on search results returned, paragraph 0084, 0089, a query divided into chunks and results returned for query chunks).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Pawar’s method of processing search queries and returning search results based on threshold time windows with Vandenberg’s ability to utilize a wait time to determine query results returned based on query chunks. This gives the user the ability to track and utilize a wait time when returning query results. The motivation for doing so would be to better respond to queries for data stored in heterogeneous data sources (paragraph 0001).
As per claim 9, Pawar teaches receiving: receive, from a client device, a confirmation message indicating that the first subset of the first set of query results has been received by the client device; and determine the time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results to be received by the client device based on the confirmation message. (paragraph 0037, confirmation of search, paragraph 0050, 0055, threshold period of time)
As per claim 10, Pawar teaches receive, from a client, a third request; determine, using a processor, a result of processing the third request; and responsive to the size of the result exceeding a threshold, returning one or more signed URLs to the client. (paragraph 0034, 0058, received search query and determining results, paragraph 0034, results can be in a form of a URL specifying location of interface)
As per claim 15, Pawar teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a cloud computation system, cause the cloud computation system to perform operation comprising: (see Abstract)
receive a first request to read a first set of query results stored in a cloud based data storage; (paragraph 0034, 0058, a search query is received to generate search results received in a search results interface on a social networking system, paragraph 0073, information on the social networking system residing on cloud components)
transmit a first subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request; (paragraph 0047, 0049, 0050, search results are provided to users based on batch counters, the provided search results based on results of a particular type or above a threshold score)
transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, (paragraph 0043, 0055, 0058, search results corresponding to type or threshold time information is received)
receive a second request to read a second set of query results stored in the cloud based data storage; (paragraph 0050, a plurality of search queries are received in a social networking system, paragraph 0073, information on the social networking system residing on cloud components)
transmit a first subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request; (paragraph 0047, 0049, 0050, search results are provided to users based on batch counters)
transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, (paragraph 0043, 0055, 0058, search results corresponding to type or threshold time information is received)
Pawar does not explicitly indicate in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results… and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results.
Vandenberg teaches in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results is less than a fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the first set of query results in response to the first request, wherein a size of the second subset of the first set of query results is greater than a size of the first subset of the first set of query results… and in response to determining that a time of transmission of the first subset of the second set of query results is greater than the fast transfer threshold value, transmit a second subset of the second set of query results in response to the second request, wherein a size of the second subset of the second set of query results is smaller than a size of the first subset of the second set of query results. (paragraph 0044, 0077, a wait time to return search results is tracked and limits are provided on search results returned, paragraph 0084, 0089, a query divided into chunks and results returned for query chunks).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Pawar’s method of processing search queries and returning search results based on threshold time windows with Vandenberg’s ability to utilize a wait time to determine query results returned based on query chunks. This gives the user the ability to track and utilize a wait time when returning query results. The motivation for doing so would be to better respond to queries for data stored in heterogeneous data sources (paragraph 0001).
As per claim 16, Pawar teaches receive, from a client device, a confirmation message indicating that the first subset of the first set of query results has been received by the client device; and determine the time of transmission of the first subset of the first set of query results to be received by the client device based on the confirmation message. (paragraph 0037, confirmation of search, paragraph 0050, 0055, threshold period of time)
As per claim 17, Pawar teaches receive, from a client, a third request; determine, using a processor, a result of processing the third request; and responsive to the size of the result exceeding a threshold, returning one or more signed URLs to the client. (paragraph 0034, 0058, received search query and determining results, paragraph 0034, results can be in a form of a URL specifying location of interface)
Allowable Subject Matter
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 contain allowable subject matter over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest receiving a request to generate a query; generating, with a set of executors, a set of query results based on the query; storing the set of query results in the cloud based data storage; and returning metadata indicating a location of the set of query results in response to the first request, as disclosed in claim 4, and similarly in claims 11 and 18. The prior art of Pawar in view of Vandenberg teaches a method of processing search queries and returning search results based on threshold time windows that can utilize a wait time to determine query results returned, but does not explicitly indicate query results being returned in response to a query includes metadata indicating query result locations.
Claim 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mishra (US Publication 2022/0318283 A1)
Green (US Publication 2018/0096071 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANGELINO N GORTAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-7204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/DANGELINO N GORTAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights