DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2025 has been entered.
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 5/21/2025.
Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 are pending.
Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924), further in view of Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544).
Claims 22 and 37, and 53 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868).
Claims 26, 27, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Cosic (US Patent Pub 2003/0065662).
Claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007 /0043605).
Claims 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007 /0043605), further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868).
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007 /0043605), further in view of Sattler et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0026137).
Claim 48 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Wallace (US Patent Pub 2005/0179684).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 24, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, third limitation “no change action and a split action and an append action” should have commas since it is a list of “permitted load actions”, such as “no change action, a split action, and an append action”.
In claim 21, fifth limitation “data process” should be re-added. It is unclear why it was deleted.
In claim 24, line 2, “a filter action” should be “the filter action”.
In claim 42, line 2, “plurality of actions” should be “plurality of data process actions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites in the sixth and tenth limitations “… without altering any of the data in the records in the copy of the structured data except as it relates to a header” and “wherein the user is not permitted to change any data of the records within the copy of the structured data except as it relates to the header to ensure data integrity.” First, it is unclear what is meant by “except as it relates to a header” since any data would, by virtue of being part of a set of records having header information, would be data that “relates to a header.” How data is determined to “relate to a header” is not defined by the claim nor is it described in the specification. Applicant also does not provide citations to the specification that provide support and explanations as to how the relation is defined or how it is determined. Since it is also unclear what the metes and bounds of a data relationship to a header is, the claims are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph below.
In addition, sorting and filtering are listed as data process actions that can be executed on the “copy of the structured data”. Such actions would constitute “altering” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word, which further adds to the confusion of what is intended by the limitation. As noted above, the specification also does not clarify what is intended by the limitation. Accordingly, Examiner asserts the limitation is not supported by the specification.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As noted in the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph above, the metes and bounds of the limitations “… data … except as it relates to a header” are unclear. Clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites “the set of data process actions includes a split action”. It is unclear if this “split action” is a new split action different from the “split action” of the “permitted load actions”. Clarification is required.
Claim 23 recites “the set of data process actions includes a split action”. It is unclear if this “split action” is a new split action different from the “split action” of the “permitted load actions”. Clarification is required.
Claim 32 recites “wherein automatically transforming”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites “wherein the step of causing the data process engine to automatically transform”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 48 recites “… to transform the copy of the structured data from any of these different formats into the copy of the structured data”. It is unclear what is intended here. Clarification is required.
Claim 49 recites “… to transform the copy of the structured data from any of these different database formats of the plurality of different database vendors into the copy of the structured data.” It is unclear what is intended here. Clarification is required.
Claim 53 recites “the existing database table.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury), further in view of Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin).
In regards to claim 21, Hughes discloses a method of processing structured data based upon analyzing a copy of structured data by a user or a third party to determine a set of actions taken from a plurality of fixed and non-modifiable data process actions using an open data platform that accesses one or more data sources having data structured in one or more several file formats as a plurality of records therein, the method comprising:
providing a data process engine through a computer user interface associated therewith, that enables users to access the one or more data sources and perform the plurality of data process actions (Hughes at paras. 0018, 0022, 0027, 0087, 0106, 0108-109)1;
selecting by the user one of the one or more data sources through the computer user interface by specifying one of a plurality of different data and file formats of the selected data source through the computer user interface (Hughes at para. 0018)2;
selecting by the user a permitted load action, wherein permitted load actions include a no change action, a split action, and an append action (Hughes at para. 0107-109)3;
responsive to the selection of the selected data source and the selection of the load action, causing the data process engine to load the copy of the structured data (Hughes at paras. 0091-95)4;
selecting by the user the set of data process actions (Hughes at para. 0109)5
responsive to the selection of the set of data process actions by the user, automatically causing the data process engine to perform each of the selected actions on the copy of the structured data, thereby modifying the copy of the structured data to include modifications due to the set of data process actions selected by the user without altering any of the data in the records in the copy of the structured data except as it relates to a header (Hughes at paras. 0103, 0106)6;
wherein the plurality of data process actions does not permit any user created programming actions or programming commands via any programming language (Hughes at para. 0106)7;
wherein none of the plurality of data process actions allow for content of the data within the selected data source to be changed (Hughes at paras. 0020-22, 0028)8;
wherein the user is not permitted to change any data of the records within the copy of the structured data except as it relates to the header to ensure data integrity (Hughes at paras. 0103, 0106)9;
wherein the data process engine includes the fixed and non-modifiable plurality of data process actions that are available to the user for creating the set of data process actions and that cannot be modified, deleted, or added to by the user or the third party to home the data process engine has been made available (Hughes at para. 0103)10.
Hughes does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of data process actions include a sort action and a filter action. It is noted that Hughes does disclose allowing a user to determine the order of loaded data. Hughes at para. 0107-109.
Ainsbury discloses a system and method to allow a user to retrieve data from selected data sources in a variety of types (i.e., formats), have the data parsed and analyzed, and stored in a data store for user review and analysis. Ainsbury at col. 2, lines 47-67. Ainsbury discloses the client interface provides sorting and filtering functionality (i.e., data process actions that include a sort action and a filter action) that allow the user to sort items based on a selected property or filter based on a list of property criteria. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.
Hughes and Ainsbury are analogous art because they are both directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management and integration.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes by adding the feature of wherein the plurality of data process actions include a sort action and a filter action, as disclosed by Ainsbury.
The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly organize information in a manner desired by the user for analysis. Ainsbury at col. 22, lines 18-29.
Hughes in view of Ainsbury does not expressly disclose subsequent to performing the set of data process actions, saving the copy of the structured data as a unique named database table.
Griffin discloses a system and method for data integration, migration, and conversion. Griffin discloses a versioning feature where documents (wherein a document can be a spreadsheet (i.e., a table)) into which data is imported (i.e., saved), create a draft version (i.e., copy) when modifications are made. When the modifications are saved, a new version of the document is created and marked as "active" (i.e., unique named database table) while the old version is marked as obsolete. Thus, the old version data is maintained without modification while a new version is saved with the modifications from the draft version. Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286.
Hughes, Ainsbury, and Griffin are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data integration.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury by adding the features of disclose subsequent to performing the set of data process actions, saving the copy of the structured data as a unique named database table, as disclosed by Griffin.
The motivation for doing so would have been because versioning prevents unintended changes to data and allows for reviewing of how data is changed over time through consistency control. Griffin at para. 0056.
In regards to claim 23, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21 wherein the set of data process actions includes a split action, and wherein the sort action causes sorting of rows based on a column or a subset of columns within the copy of the structured data, and where the resultant of the sort action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Hughes at para. 0107. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.11
In regards to claim 24, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the set of data process actions includes the filter action, and wherein the filter action causes filtering of rows based on a selected column within the copy of structured data, and wherein the resultant of the filter action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.12
In regards to claim 25, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the set of data process actions include multiple filter actions that cause filtering of rows based on selected columns within the copy of the structured data, and wherein the resultant of the multiple filter actions is included within the unique name database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.13
In regards to claim 28, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein any program data process executed by the data process engine is one of the fixed and non-modifiable plurality of data process actions. Hughes at paras. 0030-0036.14
In regards to claim 31, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the one or more data sources includes personal computer platforms, server platforms and storage sources. Hughes at para. 0018.15
In regards to claim 32, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein automatically transforming includes repositioning the structured data from one of a plurality of formats, the plurality of formats being one of a flat file, a spreadsheet, and a database table. Hughes at paras. 0034, 0061.16
In regards to claim 33, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the data process actions are the same regardless of which of the different database and file formats are loaded. Hughes at paras. 0061; 0109.17
In regards to claim 34, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the set of data process actions provide for rapid data prototyping and table data analysis and evaluation capability, thereby allowing for users to directly access the copy of the structured data without knowledge of data structures within the file from which the structured data was obtained. Hughes at paras. 0106-109.18
In regards to claim 49, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of different database and file formats include respective database formats of a plurality of different database vendors, such that the data process engine is able to transform the copy of the structured data from any of these different database formats of the plurality of different database vendors into the copy of the structured data. Hughes at para. 0018.19
In regards to claim 51, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein a point and click selection process is implemented to select each of the plurality of data process actions and each of the one or more data sources. Hughes at Figs. 4, 5; para. 005520
In regards to claim 54, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the one or more data sources do not have column headers and wherein one of the plurality of permitted load actions includes a no header load action. Hughes at Fig. 5; paras. 0073, 0086.21
In regards to claim 55, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 54, wherein the no header load action creates a column header and a column name for each column which did not have a column header. Hughes at Fig. 5; paras. 0073, 0086.22
Claims 22, 37, and 53 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868) (Dingman) of record.
In regards to claim 22, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein the set of data process actions includes a split action, and wherein the split action causes splitting an original column of the selected data source, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data.
Dingman discloses an event driven data transformation system. Dingman at abstract. Dingman further a function that parses a street address field and returns its parts (i.e., split column) during transformation. Dingman col. 13, lines 28-31, 56-65; col. 18, lines 54-7. Dingman further discloses the user can map source fields to target fields in any manner and in a desired format using the provided functions. For example, a namePart function can parse and rearrange a name field (i.e., original column) and split its value into individual specified parts (i.e., specifying additional split columns). Dingman at col. 12, lines 65-67; col. 13, lines 1-7, 56-67. The original source field and the split fields can all be defined in the target layout as desired by the user.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Dingman are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the set of data process actions includes a split action, and wherein the split action causes splitting an original column of the selected data source, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier mapping, which allows for on the fly mapping and transformation without using an intermediate file. Dingman at col. 8, lines 64-67; col. 1, lines 1-5.
In regards to claim 37, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein the step of causing the data process engine to automatically transform further comprises providing a rejects support system that automatically captures all rejected records that could not be transformed by the data process engine from a delimited flat file selected data source into a single reject table that is separate from and saved separately from the unique named database table , wherein accepted records are input as the copy of the structured data during the step of loading and those accepted records that are subsequently saved as the unique named database table when the copy of the structured data is saved, such that the source records from the one or more data sources are not altered. As noted in the rejections above, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin disclose not altering the source data and further, saving a working copy of the data to a unique named database table. What is not expressly disclosed is the reject and approval methodology of this claim.
Dingman discloses a reject function that takes records from a source adds them to a separate rejected file if they cannot be transformed. Otherwise, the record is transformed and placed in the target data file. Dingman at col. 22, lines 50-8. In other words, rejected records are added to a separate table that is separate from the target table (i.e., separate from and saved separately from), where the target table stores the approved records that could be transformed.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Dingman are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of data management using spreadsheets and tables.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the step of causing the data process engine to automatically transform further comprises providing a rejects support system that automatically captures all rejected records that could not be transformed by the data process engine from a delimited flat file selected data source into a single reject table that is separate from and saved separately from the unique named database table , wherein accepted records are input as the copy of the structured data during the step of loading and those accepted records that are subsequently saved as the unique named database table when the copy of the structured data is saved, such that the source records from the one or more data sources are not altered, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to detect and remove source records that could not be translated. Dingman at col. 22, lines 50-8.
In regards to claim 53, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose further comprising allowing for removal of appended data that was appended to the existing database table.
Dingman discloses the ability to delete, which allows a user to delete any appended data. Dingman at col. 13, lines 43-46.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, and Griffin by adding the feature of allowing for removal of appended data that was appended to the existing database table, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow removal of source records that could not be translated. Dingman at col. 22, lines 50-8.
Claims 26, 27, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Cosic (US Patent Pub 2003/0065662) of record.
In regards to claim 26, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21, further including the steps of retrieving into active memory the saved unique named database table and subsequently performing another action that is one of the plurality of data process actions and wherein saving a new copy of the unique named database table requires a new unique named database table different from the unique named database table. Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286.23
Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of data process actions further includes a name or rename column header action, and wherein the name or rename column header action allows replacing an existing column header name with a new column header name within a new copy of the unique named database table.
Cosic discloses a universal data management interface. A user is permitted to rename columns of a database table through a graphical user interface. Cosic at Fig. 11; paras. 0251-7.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Cosic are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the plurality of data process actions further includes a name or rename column header action, and wherein the name or rename column header action allows replacing an existing column header name with a new column header name within a new copy of the unique named database table, as disclosed by Cosic.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users more flexibility and to correct potential errors that may occur during the transformation or import process. As noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, Griffin discloses creating a new version after modifications are performed (i.e., new unique named database table different from the unique named database table).
In regards to claim 27, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein a name or rename column header action that is one of the plurality of data process actions includes the step of renaming a column heading from the copy of the structured data.
Cosic discloses a universal data management interface. A user is permitted to rename columns of a database table through a graphical user interface. Cosic at Fig. 11; paras. 0251-7.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Cosic are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein a name or rename column header action that is one of the plurality of data process actions includes the step of renaming a column heading from the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Cosic.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users more flexibility and to correct potential errors that may occur during the transformation or import process.
In regards to claim 56, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 55, but does not expressly disclose wherein the data process engine executes a header rename action that allows for the renaming of a selected one of the column headers.
Cosic discloses a universal data management interface. A user is permitted to rename columns of a database table through a graphical user interface. Cosic at Fig. 11; paras. 0251-7.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Cosic are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the data process engine executes a header rename action that allows for the renaming of a selected one of the column headers, as disclosed by Cosic.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users more flexibility and to correct potential errors that may occur during the transformation or import process.
Claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0043605) (Fisher) of record.
In regards to claim 35, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21,
a. for each of the plurality of data process actions, creating another special record in the statistics database table (Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286);
b. thereby tracking each of the plurality of data process actions, and identification of the unique named database table associated with those plurality of data process actions. Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286.
c. but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
i. wherein, while performing the set of data process actions, statistics and metrics support system tracks each of the actions that occur in the set of data process actions, wherein the statistics and metrics support system tracks database and file transactions, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including:
(1) providing user statistics and metrics in a statistics database table having a special record format entry of each instance of the plurality of data process actions performed on the copy of the structured data;
Fisher discloses a method for tracking a user's activity by monitoring the user's actions for opening, creating or modifying a file. Fisher at abstract. In this way, statistics and metrics of a user’s performance of actions is tracked and stored in a statistics database, which can be queried to run reports. Fisher further discloses creating reports on the tasks to review employee efficiency and time for completion of tasks. Fisher at paras. 0028, 0043-59.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management using spreadsheets and tables.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the features of wherein, while performing the set of data process actions, statistics and metrics support system tracks each of the actions that occur in the set of data process actions, wherein the statistics and metrics support system tracks database and file transactions, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including providing user statistics in a statistics and metrics database table having a special record format entry of each instance of the plurality of data process actions performed on the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Fisher.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means to monitor user activity to determine system usage and efficiency.
In regards to claim 36, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein the user statistics are kept in the statistics database table and will display as designated by the user. Fisher at para. 0029.24
In regards to claim 39, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein the sort action causes sorting of rows based on a column or a subset of columns within the copy of the structured data, and where the resultant of the sort action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.25
In regards to claim 41, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein the filter action causes filtering of rows based on a selected column within the copy of structured data, and wherein the resultant of the filter action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.26
In regards to claim 42, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein one of the plurality of actions further include multiple filter actions that causes filtering of rows based on selected columns within the copy of the structured data, and wherein the resultant of the multiple filter actions is included within the unique name database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.27
In regards to claim 45, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
a. tracking database and file transactions for tracking database records and each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including:
i. providing user statistics and metrics in a statistics database table having a special records format of each of the plurality of data process actions performed, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions of sorting and filtering.
Fisher discloses a method for tracking a user's activity by monitoring the user's actions for opening, creating or modifying a file. Fisher at abstract. In this way, statistics and metrics of a user’s performance of actions is tracked and stored in a statistics database, which can be queried to run reports. Fisher further discloses creating reports on the tasks to review employee efficiency and time for completion of tasks. Fisher at paras. 0028, 0043-59.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management using spreadsheets and tables.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the features of tracking database and file transactions for tracking database records and each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including providing user statistics and metrics in a statistics database table having a special records format of each of the plurality of data process actions performed, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions of sorting and filtering, as disclosed by Fisher.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means to monitor user activity to determine system usage and efficiency.
In regards to claim 46, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 45, wherein the user statistics are kept in the statistics database table and will display as designated by the user. Fisher at para. 0029.28
Claim 38 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0043605) (Fisher) of record, further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868) (Dingman) of record.
In regards to claim 38, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, but does not expressly disclose wherein the split action causes splitting an original column of the selected data source, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data.
Dingman discloses an event driven data transformation system. Dingman at abstract. Dingman further a function that parses a street address field and returns its parts (i.e., split column into additional columns) during transformation. Dingman col. 13, lines 28-31, 56-65; col. 18, lines 54-7. Dingman further discloses the user can map source fields to target fields in any manner and in a desired format using the provided functions. For example, a namePart function can parse and rearrange a name field (i.e., original column) and split its value into individual specified parts (i.e., specifying additional split columns). Dingman at col. 12, lines 65-67; col. 13, lines 1-7, 56-67. The original source field and the split fields can all be defined in the target layout as desired by the user.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, Fisher, and Dingman are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher by adding the feature of wherein the split action causes splitting an original column of the selected data source, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier mapping, which allows for on the fly mapping and transformation without using an intermediate file. Dingman at col. 8, lines 64-67; col. 1, lines 1-5.
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin), and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0043605) (Fisher), further in view of Sattler et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0026137) (Sattler).
In regards to claim 40, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, but does not expressly disclose wherein the copy action allows the user to copy and paste data from the one or more specified rows or one or more specified columns of the copy of the structured data to an external file, thereby allowing performance of an additional non-fixed and non-predetermined action in the external file.
Sattler discloses a data selection program that allows a user to select data from a data set. The data set comprises data from a plurality of different types of systems. After selecting data, the data is presented in a data selection program window that permits a user to further interact with the returned records. A user can select desired rows and export them to an external spreadsheet file (i.e., allowing performance of an additional non-fixed and non-predetermined action in the external spreadsheet file). Sattler at Fig. 2; paras. 0014, 0022.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, Fisher, and Sattler are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data integration and management.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher by adding the feature of wherein the copy action allows the user to copy and paste data from the one or more specified rows or one or more specified columns of the copy of the structured data to an external file, thereby allowing performance of an additional non-fixed and non-predetermined action in the external file, as disclosed by Sattler.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to work on selected data in a spreadsheet with the ability to refresh data and to upload the data to the database after work has been completed. Sattler at para. 0002.
Claim 48 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Wallace (US Patent Pub 2005/0179684) of record.
In regards to claim 48, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of different database and file formats include databases and custom delimited flat file, such that the data progress engine is able to transform the copy of the structured data from any of these different formats into the copy of the structured data (Hughes at para. 0018) but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of different database and file formats also includes comma separated value (CSV) and tab separated value (TSV).
Wallace discloses file formats for saving spreadsheet data in tab delimited or comma delimited files. Wallace at paras. 0271, 0286.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Wallace are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management through a spreadsheet interface.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the plurality of different database and file formats also includes comma separated value (CSV) and tab separated value (TSV), as disclosed by Wallace.
The motivation for doing so would have been because csv and tsv formatted files are easily saved from spreadsheet interfaces. Wallace at para. 0286.
Response to Amendment
Rejection of Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 under 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph
Applicant’s amendment to claims 21 and 25 is acknowledged. However, Applicant’s amendments raise new issues as set forth in the rejection above. The rejection to claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 21, Applicant alleges Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin fails to disclose the limitations of claim 21 as amended and in addition, the combinations set forth in the rejection would render Hughes inoperable. Remarks at 9. Applicant’s allegations rely solely on the Savin declaration filed 5/21/2025.
In particular, the Savin declaration alleges (1) Hughes requires user programming through the use of spreadsheet application, (2) Hughes requires conversational programming along with the programming required to use the spreadsheet application, and (3) Hughes does not ensure data integrity because it allows for overwriting.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations described in the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In regards to argument (1), the declaration alleges Hughes requires user programming because it is an “add-in” for an application, such as a spreadsheet application. Declaration at pg. 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hughes expressly discloses the user is given the ability to create data requests “without understanding programming or other structured requests or queries to the data source. … The user is able to query the data source by entering familiar, non-programming expressions in the underlying document or file.” Hughes at paras. 0106, 0109. Accordingly, Examiner asserts Hughes expressly discloses a system that does not require user programming. Moreover, the declaration seems to argue that use of a spreadsheet application requires programming. However, Applicant’s specification describes the invention as also utilizing a spreadsheet application for certain aspects and functionality. Some examples include at para. 0108 describes “reorganization of copies of data sources is via spreadsheet software,” para. 0109 provides the “spreadsheet software is the only external data software that works with embodiments of the invention”, para. 0114 states the “data application process is designed and executed by the user; and involves using their existing software skills; in this case, the knowledge and use of spreadsheet software function,” and para. 0125 states “… certain embodiments of the present invention may utilize the current compute and data function of conventional spreadsheet software. … [and] … [e]bodiments of the invention use conventional file and command options of the spreadsheet software.” Other instances of using “spreadsheet software” is described in the specification. Therefore, Hughes use of a spreadsheet application as a primary software does not it and of itself require user programming. Otherwise, the invention would also require user programming for the same reasons. Accordingly, the declaration’s argument (1) is unpersuasive.
In regards to argument (2), as discussed above Hughes expressly discloses the user is able to create data requests “without understanding programming or other structured requests or queries to the data store.” Hughes at para. 0106. The declaration alleges the user must program the “add-in” to locate the data the user wishes to import at a granular level. Declaration at pgs. 3-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Hughes expressly discloses the user is not required to understand programming. Instead, the features noted by the declaration merely allow the user to further configure how data is retrieved from the data source, but it is not required. Hughes discloses the components in the interface can be operated by the user “selectively.” Hughes at para. 0056. Furthermore, selecting options and inputting data as presented in the user interface for the pre-programmed software and components are not “user created programming actions or programming commands via any programming language” as claimed. Accordingly, the declaration’s argument (2) is unpersuasive.
In regards to argument (3), the declaration alleges Hughes does not ensure data integrity because it allows for overwriting. Declaration at pg. 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the limitation recites “wherein the user is not permitted to change any data of the records within the copy of the structured data except as it relates to the header to ensure data integrity.” As noted in the rejection under 112, first paragraph above, the disclosure does not define how to determine if data relates to a header. Data within a data set will relate to given headers in some manner. Furthermore, as also noted in the rejection above, the claimed “data process actions” modify the structured data, which contradicts the limitation. Lastly, “to ensure data integrity” is a recitation of intended use or intended result and does not have patentable weight. In addition, Hughes discloses its system is “non-invasive and does not require the user to alter the underlying document or file in any way.” Hughes at para. 0022. This would provide and ensure “data integrity”. Accordingly, the declaration’s argument (3) is unpersuasive.
The Savin declaration does not address or explain why the combination of cited prior art would render Hughes inoperable. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references or how the combination would render Hughes inoperable.
In conclusion, the declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 21 based up