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 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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 claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No 12468725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 19 of U.S. Patent No 11803569. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Costa et al (hereinafter Costa) US Publication No 20210044571.
As per claim 1, Costa teaches:
A computing system comprising:
at least one network interface; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0017] and [0023]) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
receive, from a client device located within a first geographic region, an indication of a request to access given data stored by a computing platform comprising storage locations within multiple different geographic regions;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
identify a given data object that is responsive to the request, wherein the given data object is stored at a given storage location of the computing platform that is within a second geographic region;
(Fig. 6, and Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
evaluate whether client devices located within the first geographic region are permitted to access data at storage locations within the second geographic region and thereby validate that the client device located within the first geographic region is permitted to access the given data object stored at the given storage location within the second geographic region;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
and based at least on validating that the client device located within the first geographic region is permitted to access the given data object stored at the given storage location within the second geographic region, cause the given data object to be retrieved from the given storage location and provided to the client device.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
As per claim 3, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
evaluate whether a given user of the client device is authenticated and has permission to access the given data object and thereby validate that the given user of the client device is authenticated and has permission to access the given data object, wherein causing the given data object to be retrieved from the given storage location and provided to the client device is further based on validating that the given user of the client device is authenticated and has permission to access the given data object.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
As per claim 6, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
after identifying the given data object that is responsive to the request, determine that the given data object is stored at the given storage location of the computing platform that is within the second geographic region.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
As per claim 7, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 6, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to determine that the given data object is stored at the given storage location of the computing platform that is within the second geographic region comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
determine that the given data object is stored at the given storage location of the computing platform that is within the second geographic region based on a routing address for the given data object that is retrieved as part of identifying the given data object.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
As per claim 8, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to evaluate whether client devices located within the first geographic region are permitted to access data at storage locations within the second geographic region and thereby validate that the client device located within the first geographic region is permitted to access the given data object stored at the given storage location within the second geographic region comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
identify one or more data export regulations that are applicable to storage locations located within the second geographic region;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
and evaluate whether permitting the client device located within the first geographic location to access the given data object stored at the given storage location within the second geographic region is in violation of any of the identified one or more data export regulations and thereby determine that permitting the client device located within the first geographic region to access the given data object stored at the given storage location within the second geographic region is not in violation of any of the identified one or more data export regulations.
(Paragraphs [0014]-[0018])
As per claim 9, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the computing system comprises a first computing system, and wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first computing system to cause the given data object to be retrieved from the given storage location and provided to the client device comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first computing system to:
transmit, to a second computing system comprising the given storage location, a request to retrieve the given data object from the given storage location.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
As per claim 10, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the second computing system processes the request to retrieve the given data object and then (i) retrieves the given data object from the given storage location and (ii) transmits the given data object to the client device.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
As per claim 11, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first computing system to cause the given data object to be retrieved from the given storage location and provided to the client device comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first computing system to:
receive, from the second computing system, the given data object;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
and after receiving the given data object, transmit the given data object to the client device.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
Claims 16-17 are method claims respectively corresponding to system claims 1 and 8 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 8.
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to the combination of system claims 9 and 10 and it is rejected under the same rational as claims 9 and 10.
As per claim 19, Costa teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the computing system comprises a first computing system, and wherein causing the given data object to be retrieved from the given storage location and provided to the client device comprises:
transmitting, to a second computing system comprising the given storage location, a request to retrieve the given data object from the given storage location, wherein the second computing system processes the request to retrieve the given data object and then (i) retrieves the given data object from the given storage location and (ii) transmits the given data object to the client device.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to system claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Costa in view of Tran et al (hereinafter Tran) US Patent No. 11650749.
As per claim 2, Costa does not explicitly teach after receiving the request to access the given data stored by the computing platform, determine that the client device is located within the first geographic region based on data contained within the request, however in analogous art of content management Tran teaches:
after receiving the request to access the given data stored by the computing platform, determine that the client device is located within the first geographic region based on data contained within the request.
(Column 49 and lines 15-34)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Costa and Tran by incorporating the teaching of Tran into the method of Costa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Tran into the system of Costa for the purpose of managing data and reducing staging time of data object.
Claims 4-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Costa in view of Ford et al (hereinafter Ford) US Patent No. 10033702.
As per claim 4, Costa teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to identify the given data object that is responsive to the request comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
identify the given data object that is responsive to the request based on (i) data contained within the request
(Abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0025] and [0032]-[0033])
Costa do not explicitly teach (ii) metadata for the given data stored by the computing platform, however in analogous art of content management, Ford teaches:
and (ii) metadata for the given data stored by the computing platform.
(Column 153, lines 58-67 and Column 154, lines 1-3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Costa and Ford by incorporating the teaching of Ford into the method of Costa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Ford into the system of Costa for the purpose of managing data and optimizing data exchange.
As per claim 5, Costa and Ford teach:
The computing system of claim 4, wherein the metadata for the given data stored by the computing platform comprises metadata retrieved from a global representation of data stored by the computing platform.
(Column 153, lines 58-67 and Column 154, lines 1-3)(Ford)
As per claim 12, Costa does not explicitly teach computing platform comprising the storage locations within the multiple different geographic regions is a multi-zone computing platform that hosts a Software as a Service (SaaS) application, however in analogous art of content management, Ford teaches:
computing platform comprising the storage locations within the multiple different geographic regions is a multi-zone computing platform that hosts a Software as a Service (SaaS) application.
(column 8, lines 20-35 column 14, lines 9-31 and column 68, lines 9-34 and column 165, lines 7-22)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Costa and Ford by incorporating the teaching of Ford into the method of Costa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Ford into the system of Costa for the purpose of managing data across distributed platforms and improving data analysis.
As per claim 13, Costa and Ford teach:
The computing system of claim 12, wherein the computing system is associated with a first zone of the multi-zone computing platform and the given storage location is associated with a second zone of the multi-zone computing platform.
(column 8, lines 20-35 column 14, lines 9-31)(Ford)
As per claim 14, Costa does not explicitly teach request to access the given data stored by the computing platform comprises a request to either view, edit, or delete the given data that is stored by the computing platform, however in analogous art of content management, Ford teaches:
request to access the given data stored by the computing platform comprises a request to either view, edit, or delete the given data that is stored by the computing platform.
(Column 15, lines 58-67 and Column 16, lines 1-6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Costa and Ford by incorporating the teaching of Ford into the method of Costa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Ford into the system of Costa for the purpose of managing data across distributed platforms and improving data analysis.
As per claim 15, Costa does not explicitly teach request to access the given data stored by the computing platform comprises one or both of (i) an identifier of the given data object or (ii) one or more parameters defining a query that encompasses the given data object, however in analogous art of content management, Ford teaches:
request to access the given data stored by the computing platform comprises one or both of (i) an identifier of the given data object or (ii) one or more parameters defining a query that encompasses the given data object.
(Column 164, lines 22-43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Costa and Ford by incorporating the teaching of Ford into the method of Costa. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Ford into the system of Costa for the purpose of managing data across distributed platforms and improving data analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights