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 .
Claims 21 – 40 are pending.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21 – 24, 30 – 35 and 40 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,995,033. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
See mapping below:
Current Application 19/329801
U.S. Patent No. 11,995,033
21. (New) A method comprising: accessing a retention policy including a policy expression code, the policy expression code being in a programming language;
applying the policy expression code to one or more datasets to generate a plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets;
deleting, based on the retention policy, the plurality of marked data elements from a first partition of a plurality of partitions in a distributed data store; and
retaining, based on the retention policy, the plurality of marked data elements in a second partition of the plurality of partitions in the distributed data store; wherein the method is performed by one or more processors.
1. A method, performed by one or more processors, comprising: receiving input descriptive of a retention policy, the input descriptive of the retention policy comprising policy expression language code;
evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy to determine one or more deletable data elements in the one or more datasets by at least:
generating a plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets based on the retention policy, each marked data element of the plurality of marked data elements being associated with a marked property and comprising a data element, the marked property indicating that the data element is deletable; and
selecting the one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements, wherein the one or more deletable data elements include a first marked data element and the one or more deletable data elements do not include a second marked data element, wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element, and wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size; deleting the one or more deletable data elements from a data store,
wherein the deleting the one or more deletable data elements comprises, for each partition of a plurality of partitions of the data store: deleting, from a respective partition, a respective set of the one or more deletable data elements, wherein the respective set of the one or more deletable data elements are stored on the respective partition prior to deletion, wherein the evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy comprises applying the policy expression language code of the input descriptive of the retention policy to the one or more datasets.
22. (New) The method of claim 21, further comprising: selecting one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements in the second partition based on the retention policy; and deleting the one or more deletable data elements from the second partition of the data store.
1. A method, performed by one or more processors, comprising: receiving input descriptive of a retention policy, the input descriptive of the retention policy comprising policy expression language code;
evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy to determine one or more deletable data elements in the one or more datasets by at least:
generating a plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets based on the retention policy, each marked data element of the plurality of marked data elements being associated with a marked property and comprising a data element, the marked property indicating that the data element is deletable; and
selecting the one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements, wherein the one or more deletable data elements include a first marked data element and the one or more deletable data elements do not include a second marked data element, wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element, and wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size; deleting the one or more deletable data elements from a data store,
wherein the deleting the one or more deletable data elements comprises, for each partition of a plurality of partitions of the data store: deleting, from a respective partition, a respective set of the one or more deletable data elements, wherein the respective set of the one or more deletable data elements are stored on the respective partition prior to deletion, wherein the evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy comprises applying the policy expression language code of the input descriptive of the retention policy to the one or more datasets.
23. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the policy expression code includes a first selector and a second selector; wherein the applying the policy expression code to one or more datasets includes at least:
applying the first selector to the one or more datasets to generate a set of data elements; and
in response to generating the set of data elements, applying the second selector to the set of data elements to generate the plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets.
4. The method of claim 2 wherein the first part of the policy expression language code comprises one or more dataset selectors and the second part of the policy expression language code comprises one or more transaction selectors.
24. (New) The method of claim 23, wherein the first selector is of a first selector type; wherein the second selector is of a second selector type; wherein the first selector type is different from the second selector type; wherein a selector type includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a dataset selector type, a data transaction selector type, and a transform selector type.
4. The method of claim 2 wherein the first part of the policy expression language code comprises one or more dataset selectors and the second part of the policy expression language code comprises one or more transaction selectors.
30. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein each marked data element of the plurality of marked data elements is associated with a marked property and includes a data element, the marked property indicating that the data element is deletable.
1. A method, performed by one or more processors, comprising: receiving input descriptive of a retention policy, the input descriptive of the retention policy comprising policy expression language code;
evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy to determine one or more deletable data elements in the one or more datasets by at least:
generating a plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets based on the retention policy, each marked data element of the plurality of marked data elements being associated with a marked property and comprising a data element, the marked property indicating that the data element is deletable; and
selecting the one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements, wherein the one or more deletable data elements include a first marked data element and the one or more deletable data elements do not include a second marked data element, wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element, and wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size; deleting the one or more deletable data elements from a data store,
wherein the deleting the one or more deletable data elements comprises, for each partition of a plurality of partitions of the data store: deleting, from a respective partition, a respective set of the one or more deletable data elements, wherein the respective set of the one or more deletable data elements are stored on the respective partition prior to deletion, wherein the evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy comprises applying the policy expression language code of the input descriptive of the retention policy to the one or more datasets.
31. (New) The method of claim 21, further comprising: selecting one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements; wherein the one or more deletable data elements include a first marked data element and the one or more deletable data elements do not include a second marked data element; wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is generally equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element; wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size.
1. A method, performed by one or more processors, comprising: receiving input descriptive of a retention policy, the input descriptive of the retention policy comprising policy expression language code;
evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy to determine one or more deletable data elements in the one or more datasets by at least:
generating a plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets based on the retention policy, each marked data element of the plurality of marked data elements being associated with a marked property and comprising a data element, the marked property indicating that the data element is deletable; and
selecting the one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements, wherein the one or more deletable data elements include a first marked data element and the one or more deletable data elements do not include a second marked data element, wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element, and wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size; deleting the one or more deletable data elements from a data store,
wherein the deleting the one or more deletable data elements comprises, for each partition of a plurality of partitions of the data store: deleting, from a respective partition, a respective set of the one or more deletable data elements, wherein the respective set of the one or more deletable data elements are stored on the respective partition prior to deletion, wherein the evaluating one or more datasets against the retention policy comprises applying the policy expression language code of the input descriptive of the retention policy to the one or more datasets.
Claims 32 – 35 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claims 21 – 24 above.
Claim 40 is rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claim 21 above.
Claims 21 – 24, 30 – 35 and 40 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 – 3 and 9 – 11 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,461,892. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The mapping is similar to that of above and of the Final Rejection mailed on 03/27/2025 within the ‘892 file record for which a Terminal Disclaimer was later filed.
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 21 – 30, and 32 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart et al. (US 7107416 B2) hereinafter “Stuart”) in view of Trezzo et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,976,950 B1 (hereinafter “Trezzo”).
As to claim 21, Stuart discloses a method comprising:
accessing a retention policy including a policy expression code (see Stuart, col. 4 lines 7-10, the user can define a retention policy by including descriptive language statements in the directory pathname, which are understood by the archival filter 10, that describe and specify the policy), the policy expression code being in a programming language (see Stuart, col. 12 lines 7-29, FIG. 10 illustrates operations performed by archival filter 10 or some other component, such as a database program, to handle the occurrence of an event condition, such as an employee leaving, account being closed. This may occur asynchronously with respect to users attempting to delete files or may occur when a delete request is received before the event flag 216 is checked (at block 306, in FIG. 9). Upon detecting (at block 350) the occurrence of an event condition 218 for a record, the event occurred timestamp field 224 is set (at block 352) to the current system timestamp. The retention period 206 is set (at block 354) to the post event retention period 220 to prevent removal of the file until the post event retention period 220 has expired. If (at block 356) the event retention policy for which the signal was received has not applied for the minimum event retention period 226, i.e., the current system time is not greater than the event start timestamp 222 plus the minimum event retention period 226, then action taken on the event occurrence is delayed (at block 358) until the current system time is equal to the event start timestamp 222 plus the minimum event retention period 226);
applying the policy expression code to one or more datasets to generate a plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets (see Stuart, col. 9 lines 52-65, FIG. 8 illustrates a state machine 250 that may be implemented in the archival filter 10 to determine the state of a record and whether the file may be deleted (D), shredded (S) or purged (P) depending on the retention policies indicated in the metadata 200 for the record. Following are possible states of a record as indicated in the state machine 250 (FIG. 7): E: a record whose metadata 200 has the event flag 216 set "on" indicating an event condition that is unsatisfied and, optionally, a post event retention period 220. R.sup.U: a record having an unexpired retention period 206 of a duration indicated by the retention period 206. R.sup.X: a record whose retention period 206 has expired, has no pending event condition, and is eligible for deletion);
deleting, based on the retention policy, the plurality of marked data elements in a distributed data store (see Stuart, col. 5 lines 9-25, If the retention policy is for a defined, i.e., expirable, time period and if (at block 130) the retention period has expired, then control proceeds to block 124 to allow the erase request to proceed, and see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory); and
retaining, based on the retention policy, the plurality of marked data elements in the distributed data store (see Stuart, col. 5 lines 9-25, If the retention policy is for a defined, i.e., expirable, time period and … Otherwise, if the retention period has not expired, then control proceeds to block 108 to return the message denying the erase request, and see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory);
wherein the method is performed by one or more processors (see Stuart: col. 12 line 48 – Col. 13 line 11, the retention policy management system’s code is executed using processors).
However, Stuart disclosing of deletion of files and data in directories and retention of data in special hold directories (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory).
However, Stuart does not explicitly disclose deleting marked elements from a partition of a plurality of partitions, or retaining marked elements from a second partition of a plurality of partitions.
Trezzo teaches deleting, based on the retention policy, the plurality of marked data elements from a first partition of a plurality of partitions in a distributed data store (data retention period for partitions, deleting older partition data via scrubbing partitions according to the retention policy, see Trezzo: Col. 3 lines 3 – 21, Col. 9 line 20 – Col. 10 line 37, and Col. 11 lines 18 – 47, and retention policy based on period and size, see Trezzo: Col. 5 lines 17 – 31, and Col. 7 line 62 – Col. 8 line 9); and
retaining, based on the retention policy, the plurality of marked data elements in a second partition of the plurality of partitions in the distributed data store (data retention period for partitions, deleting older partition data via scrubbing partitions according to the retention policy, see Trezzo: Col. 3 lines 3 – 21, Col. 9 line 20 – Col. 10 line 37, and Col. 11 lines 18 – 47, and retention policy based on period and size, see Trezzo: Col. 5 lines 17 – 31, and Col. 7 line 62 – Col. 8 line 9).
Stuart and Trezzo are analogous due to their disclosure of data retention policies for deletion and retaining of data in the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stuart use of retention policies for selecting and deleting data elements with Trezzo’s use of deleting data elements on a partition basis in order to facilitate data retention and modification across partitions.
As to claim 22, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
selecting one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements in the second partition based on the retention policy (see Stuart, col. 3 lines 42-53, to indicate that files or records within a directory are to be retained for a specified time period, the user may name a directory "/RetainX", where X specifies a time period, e.g., years, days, months, etc. The retention policy indicated in the pathname of the directory would apply to any files or records stored within the directory having the retention pathname or any further subdirectory of the directory having the retention name, after the retention period, the files are marked for deletion, see Trezzo: Col. 3 lines 3 – 21, Col. 9 line 20 – Col. 10 line 37, and Col. 11 lines 18 – 47, for retention of data within specified partitions); and
deleting the one or more deletable data elements from the second partition of the data store (see Stuart, col. 5 lines 9-25, If the retention policy is for a defined, i.e., expirable, time period and if (at block 130) the retention period has expired, then control proceeds to block 124 to allow the erase request to proceed, see Trezzo: Col. 3 lines 3 – 21, Col. 9 line 20 – Col. 10 line 37, and Col. 11 lines 18 – 47, for retention of data within specified partitions).
As to claim 23, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the policy expression code includes a first selector and a second selector (see Stuart, col. 3 lines 42-53, to indicate that files or records within a directory are to be retained for a specified time period, the user may name a directory "/RetainX", where X specifies a time period, e.g., years, days, months, etc. In certain implementations, the action of "retaining" a file may entail never allowing the file to be modified or updated in any circumstances, and only permitting erase and move operations, selection of data for retention and set periods/policy);
wherein the applying the policy expression code to one or more datasets includes at least:
applying the first selector to the one or more datasets to generate a set of data elements (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted. A regulatory filings directory 38 archives files related to regulatory filings. In certain embodiments, a file in the hold directory 34 may be moved back to the directory from which it originated or another directory after the reason for the hold is no longer relevant, first selector for files relevant to litigation); and
in response to generating the set of data elements, applying the second selector to the set of data elements to generate the plurality of marked data elements from the one or more datasets (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted. A regulatory filings directory 38 archives files related to regulatory filings. In certain embodiments, a file in the hold directory 34 may be moved back to the directory from which it originated or another directory after the reason for the hold is no longer relevant, second selector for files relevant to imminent or pending litigation to prevent deletion and moved to a hold subdirectory).
As to claim 24, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the first selector is of a first selector type (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36);
wherein the second selector is of a second selector type (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted);
wherein the first selector type is different from the second selector type (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, selecting files relevant to litigation is a first type, files selected for hold for imminent or pending litigation is a second type);
wherein a selector type includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a dataset selector type, a data transaction selector type, and a transform selector type (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, selecting files relevant to litigation is a first type (ex. dataset selector type), files selected for hold for imminent or pending litigation is a second type(ex. data transaction selector type)).
As to claim 25, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 24, wherein a data transaction selector of the data transaction selector type is configured to select one or more data transactions (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted, and see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39, selecting files relevant to litigation is a first type (ex. dataset selector type), files selected for hold for imminent or pending litigation is a second type(ex. data transaction selector type), selecting data for hold is selecting one or more data transaction);
wherein a data transaction is associated with at least one selected from a group consisting of an addition operation, a modification operation, and a deletion operation to a piece of data (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, selecting files relevant to litigation is a first type (ex. dataset selector type), files selected for hold for imminent or pending litigation is a second type(ex. data transaction selector type), hold is a modification operation to modify the retention policy for the file so it is held even after expiration of original retention period).
As to claim 26, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the data transaction selector includes at least one selected from a group consisting of an is-aborted transaction selector, an is-older- than transaction selector, a transaction count selector, an is-not-in-branch transaction selector, an is-only-in-branch transaction selector, a view count transaction selector, an is-only-in- views-older-than transaction selector, and a no-files-in-active-view transaction selector (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, selecting files relevant to litigation is a first type (ex. dataset selector type), files selected for hold for imminent or pending litigation is a second type(ex. data transaction selector type), hold is an is-aborted transaction selector as the retention policy for the file deleting expired period files is on hold (ex. aborted)).
As to claim 27, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the data transaction selector includes a data transaction selector related to one or more branches of the one or more datasets or one or more views of the one or more datasets (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted, the hold subdirectory is a branch of the litigation directory, which is a branch of the Retain 5 Years director, see Fig. 2).
As to claim 28, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 24, wherein a dataset selector of the dataset selector type includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a dataset folder selector, a dataset path selector, a derived dataset selector, a transform dataset selector, and an in-trash dataset selector (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, selecting files relevant to litigation is a first type (ex. dataset selector type), dataset in the litigation proceedings directory (ex. folder) is selected based on its path from parent directory (ex. folder) Retain5years and is under the policy for 5 year retention thereof, ex. litigation to be retained 5 years before deletion are selected for placement in this folder, unless moved to the hold subfolder).
As to claim 29, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 24, wherein a transform selector of the transform selector type is configured for selecting or unselecting datasets produced using one or more transforms (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted. A regulatory filings directory 38 archives files related to regulatory filings. In certain embodiments, a file in the hold directory 34 may be moved back to the directory from which it originated or another directory after the reason for the hold is no longer relevant, selecting data form hold and then selecting no longer relevant to not be held and moved back to the litigation directory to be under the Retain5Years retention policy, which is selecting and deselecting for transform (hold policy to retain5years policy).
As to claim 30, Stuart modified by Trezzo discloses the method of claim 21, wherein each marked data element of the plurality of marked data elements is associated with a marked property and includes a data element, the marked property indicating that the data element is deletable (see Stuart, col. 3 lines 42-53, to indicate that files or records within a directory are to be retained for a specified time period, the user may name a directory "/RetainX", where X specifies a time period, e.g., years, days, months, etc. In certain implementations, the action of "retaining" a file may entail never allowing the file to be modified or updated in any circumstances, and only permitting erase and move operations, placement within directors is a marked property that marks the file to be processed under the directory’s retention policy).
Claims 32 – 39 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claims 21 – 28 above.
Claim 40 is rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claim 21 above.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart et al. (US 7107416 B2) hereinafter “Stuart”) in view of Trezzo et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,976,950 B1 (hereinafter “Trezzo”), and further in view of Levesque et al., US 20180253218 A1, (hereinafter “Levesque”), and in further view of Cachin, C. et al (2013, November). Policy-based secure deletion. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security (pp. 259-270) (hereinafter “Cachin”).
As to claim 31, Stuart modified Trezzo discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
wherein the one or more deletable data elements include a first marked data element and the one or more deletable data elements do not include a second marked data element (see Stuart: Col. 4 lines 24 – 39 and Fig. 2, a "hold" directory 34, which is a subdirectory of the retain directory 36 and litigation proceedings subdirectory 36. Any file moved to the hold directory 34 will not be allowed to be deleted, even after the expiration of the retention period indicated in the pathname of the directory 32. For instance, if certain files may be relevant to an imminent or pending litigation, then a hold directory 34 may be added as a subdirectory of the directory 36 to store files relevant to the litigation to prevent any files moved to the hold directory 34 from being deleted. A regulatory filings directory 38 archives files related to regulatory filings. In certain embodiments, a file in the hold directory 34 may be moved back to the directory from which it originated or another directory after the reason for the hold is no longer relevant, marked in the Litigation directory has a marked for deletion after 5 years policy, those in the Hold directory are not marked for deletion after 5 years even though a sub-directory of the 5 year retention policy directory);
However, Stuart modified by Trezzo does not explicitly disclose selecting one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements; wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is generally equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element; wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size.
Levesque teaches selecting one or more deletable data elements from the plurality of marked data elements based on a size of each data element of the plurality of marked data elements (see Levesque, para 0032, The data types of FIG. 2 include video data, audio data, image data, document data, application files, and other types of data. The template 230 of FIG. 2 includes various classifications of data that may be stored at “data source A.” Note that template 230 includes data classifications of temporary, sensitive, permanent, size on disk, and to be deleted. Note also that entries in bar graph 220 correspond to the template classification 230 indicators of FIG. 2. For example, the solid black entries in bar graph 220 identify how much size on disk (i.e., an amount of memory) that is used to store video data, audio data, image data, document data, application file data, and/or other data that are currently stored on “data source A.”);
wherein the first marked data element is larger than the second marked data element in size (see Levesque, para 0032, The data types of FIG. 2 include video data, audio data, image data, document data, application files, and other types of data. The template 230 of FIG. 2 includes various classifications of data that may be stored at “data source A.” Note that template 230 includes data classifications of temporary, sensitive, permanent, size on disk, and to be deleted. Note also that entries in bar graph 220 correspond to the template classification 230 indicators of FIG. 2. For example, the solid black entries in bar graph 220 identify how much size on disk (i.e., an amount of memory) that is used to store video data, audio data, image data, document data, application file data, and/or other data that are currently stored on “data source A.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stuart and Trezzo by adding the method that allow a user to set data storage retention and deletion policies based upon a number of related factors, e.g., types of data, age of data, size of the data, where the data is stored, associated attributes, etc.) to manage long term storage of data stored as taught by Levesque.
However, Stuart modified by Trezzo and Levesque does not explicitly disclose wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is generally equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element.
Cachin teaches wherein a first computational cost for deleting the first marked data element is generally equal to a second computational cost for deleting the second marked data element (deletion schema used is one with constant deletion cost, independent of protected files, see Page 263 Section 2.6 Measuring Efficiency, see also tracking deletion cost, access cost, and master-key size for determination of efficiency for deletion in secure deletion scheme, see Page 267 – 268 Section 4.2 Relation to Secret-key Encryption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stuart, Trezzo and Levesque by adding the method of Cachin that uses a constant deletion cost and determine efficiency for deletion when executing retention and deletion policies in a system that can be integrated into existing system with minimal effort by leveraging physical local deletion to achieve secure deletion on remote large-scale data stores (Cachin: Introduction Page 259 – 260).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights