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 .
Status of Claims
In response to communications filed on 21 July 2025, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 21 July 2025, have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.10,049,160. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 9,514,189. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,916,367. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.10,860,596. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,416,505. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,367,205. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites:
detecting an occurrence of a deletion event in association with a portion of data in a local data store;
based on the occurrence of the deletion event, determining that the data fails to be archived in an external data store;
archiving the portion of the data in the external data store;
maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration; and
in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration, determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query.
These limitations recite mental processes, such as evaluating data based on a conceptual idea (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the limitations above recite a series of steps by which certain data would be accepted and other data would be discarded based on an evaluation criterion. This represents a transactional process which is may be performed in the human mind and falls under certain methods of mental processes. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see again: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including hardware processing circuitry.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(lI)), including at least:
• receiving or transmitting data over a network, and/or
• storing and retrieving information in memory
• performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-7 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claims 2-7 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claims 2-7 rely upon at least similar additional elements (e.g. third service system) that are specified at a high level of generality. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-7 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claims 2-7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-7 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claims 8-14 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1-7 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 8 additionally recites a physical data-storage device, one or more processors of a computer system, one or more memories, and one or more data-storage devices are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claims 15-20 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1-7 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 15 additionally recites at one or more processors; one or more memories and one or more data-storage devices are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brown, Albert, et al (U.S. 2007/0271306 and known hereinafter as Brown) in view of Klevenz, Stephan, et al (U.S. 2012/0030180, and known hereinafter as Klevenz).
As per claim 1, Brown teaches a method comprising:
detecting an occurrence of a deletion event in association with a portion of data in a local data store (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0051-0052], which discloses an event occurs as a result of an automatic process or user interaction with the content manager, where a content object may be the target of a delete event.);
based on the occurrence of the deletion event (e.g. Brown, see paragraph [0052], which discloses an event listener is conferred to detect events such as the delete event based upon the occurrence of the event.), determining that the data fails to be archived in an external data store (e.g. Brown, see paragraph [0040], which discloses an archival storage, where the storage action within a workflow process are embedded in the step).
Brown does not explicitly disclose archiving the portion of the data in the external data store; maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration; and in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration, determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query.
Klevenz teaches archiving the portion of the data in the external data store (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0029-0030], which discloses an archives system that provides storage and archiving services, where archive-type objects are connected to archive stores.);
maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraph [0042-0047], which discloses in an archive cycle, certain archive-type data objects may be stored in the archive system, where a period of time elapses for local storage of the business object record.); and
in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0049-0051], which discloses the request can be a search query, received form an application, a user, or an administrator of the software system to which the archived object belongs.), determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [00047-0041], which discloses records are created based on user input of primary key indicator ranges and time intervals, where each record may have credentials for a single data store or multiple data store. Additionally, the user may also provide a desired primary key indicator and/or time interval that is associated with the data item. Additionally, the system may receive requests pertaining to one or more data item, where the request may ask to store the data items, retrieve the data items, or delete the data items from the database.).
Brown is directed to active storage and retrieval systems. Klevenz is directed to archiving business objects. Both are analogous art because they are directed to manipulating archive storage and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Brown with the teachings of Klevenz to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve archival storage systems.
As per claim 8, Brown teaches a computer system comprising:
one or more processors (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0100-0102], which discloses one or more processors); and
one or more computer-readable storage media containing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0100-0102], which discloses one or more processors coupled to one or more computer storage media.), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
detecting an occurrence of a deletion event in association with a portion of data in a local data store (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0051-0052], which discloses an event occurs as a result of an automatic process or user interaction with the content manager, where a content object may be the target of a delete event.);
based on the occurrence of the deletion event (e.g. Brown, see paragraph [0052], which discloses an event listener is conferred to detect events such as the delete event based upon the occurrence of the event.), determining that the data fails to be archived in an external data store (e.g. Brown, see paragraph [0040], which discloses an archival storage, where the storage action within a workflow process are embedded in the step).
Brown does not explicitly disclose archiving the portion of the data in the external data store; maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration; and in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration, determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query.
Klevenz teaches archiving the portion of the data in the external data store (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0029-0030], which discloses an archives system that provides storage and archiving services, where archive-type objects are connected to archive stores.);
maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraph [0042-0047], which discloses in an archive cycle, certain archive-type data objects may be stored in the archive system, where a period of time elapses for local storage of the business object record.); and
in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0049-0051], which discloses the request can be a search query, received form an application, a user, or an administrator of the software system to which the archived object belongs.), determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [00047-0041], which discloses records are created based on user input of primary key indicator ranges and time intervals, where each record may have credentials for a single data store or multiple data store. Additionally, the user may also provide a desired primary key indicator and/or time interval that is associated with the data item. Additionally, the system may receive requests pertaining to one or more data item, where the request may ask to store the data items, retrieve the data items, or delete the data items from the database.).
Brown is directed to active storage and retrieval systems. Klevenz is directed to archiving business objects. Both are analogous art because they are directed to manipulating archive storage and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Brown with the teachings of Klevenz to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve archival storage systems.
As per claim 15, Brown teaches one or more computer-storage media having instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
detecting an occurrence of a deletion event in association with a portion of data in a local data store (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0051-0052], which discloses an event occurs as a result of an automatic process or user interaction with the content manager, where a content object may be the target of a delete event.);
based on the occurrence of the deletion event (e.g. Brown, see paragraph [0052], which discloses an event listener is conferred to detect events such as the delete event based upon the occurrence of the event.), determining that the data fails to be archived in an external data store (e.g. Brown, see paragraph [0040], which discloses an archival storage, where the storage action within a workflow process are embedded in the step).
Brown does not explicitly disclose archiving the portion of the data in the external data store; maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration; and in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration, determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query.
Klevenz teaches archiving the portion of the data in the external data store (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0029-0030], which discloses an archives system that provides storage and archiving services, where archive-type objects are connected to archive stores.);
maintaining the portion of the data in the local data store for a particular time duration (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraph [0042-0047], which discloses in an archive cycle, certain archive-type data objects may be stored in the archive system, where a period of time elapses for local storage of the business object record.); and
in response to receiving a query for requested data during the particular time duration (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0049-0051], which discloses the request can be a search query, received form an application, a user, or an administrator of the software system to which the archived object belongs.), determining to execute the query on the portion of data in the local data store to efficiently provide results associated with the query (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [00047-0041], which discloses records are created based on user input of primary key indicator ranges and time intervals, where each record may have credentials for a single data store or multiple data store. Additionally, the user may also provide a desired primary key indicator and/or time interval that is associated with the data item. Additionally, the system may receive requests pertaining to one or more data item, where the request may ask to store the data items, retrieve the data items, or delete the data items from the database.).
Brown is directed to active storage and retrieval systems. Klevenz is directed to archiving business objects. Both are analogous art because they are directed to manipulating archive storage and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Brown with the teachings of Klevenz to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve archival storage systems.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, the modified teachings of Brown and Klevenz teaches the method of claim 1, the computer system of claim 8, and the one or more computer-storage media of claim 15, respectively, wherein the deletion event comprises an amount of data within the local data store exceeding a predefined maximum threshold (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0051-0052], which discloses an event occurs as a result of an automatic process or user interaction with the content manager, where a content object may be the target of a delete event.).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, the modified teachings of Brown and Klevenz teaches the method of claim 1, the computer system of claim 8, and the one or more computer-storage media of claim 15, respectively, wherein the deletion event comprises an amount of available space remaining in the local data store being below a minimum threshold (e.g. Brown, see paragraphs [0051-0052], which discloses an event occurs as a result of an automatic process or user interaction with the content manager, where a content object may be the target of a delete event.).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, the modified teachings of Brown and Klevenz teaches the method of claim 1, the computer system of claim 8, and the one or more computer-storage media of claim 15, respectively, wherein the deletion event comprises an occurrence of a delete date associated with data stored within the local data store (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraph [0042-0047], which discloses in an archive cycle, certain archive-type data objects may be stored in the archive system, where a period of time elapses for local storage of the business object record.).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, the modified teachings of Brown and Klevenz teaches the method of claim 1, the computer system of claim 8, and the one or more computer-storage media of claim 15, respectively, wherein the deletion event comprises an occurrence of a delete date associated with an indexer (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraph [0042-0047], which discloses in an archive cycle, certain archive-type data objects may be stored in the archive system, where a period of time elapses for local storage of the business object record.).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, the modified teachings of Brown and Klevenz teaches the method of claim 1, the computer system of claim 8, and the one or more computer-storage media of claim 15, respectively further comprising providing the results associated with the query (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0049-0051], which discloses the request can be a search query, received form an application, a user, or an administrator of the software system to which the archived object belongs.).
As per claims 7 and 14, the modified teachings of Brown and Klevenz teaches the method of claim 1 and the computer system of claim 8, respectively, further comprising querying the local data store using the query for requested data to generate the results (e.g. Klevenz, see paragraphs [0049-0051], which discloses the request can be a search query, received form an application, a user, or an administrator of the software system to which the archived object belongs.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights