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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on February 05, 2026. Claims 20, 22-33 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 05, 2026 has been entered.
Interview request
As per applicant request, the interview was conducted on March 31, 2026 with applicant representative Scott Cromar and examiner Uddin. If applicant believe, if further interview would help to advance the prosecution, then applicant encourage to call examiner to schedule further interview.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 05, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. However, argument regarding cited art and 101 rejection are not persuasive. The argument regarding art rejection is addressed in the new rejection. The 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in the view claims amendment. The previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn but new 112(b) in been introduce.
(1) Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues the claims recite features that tie them the field of computer technology, including a specific modifications to data processing pipeline transformers based on software breaking or non-braking change type, and which involve technical improvements to computer technology.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. The breaking or non-braking change type are recited is nothing but a computer function that can be done with generic compute component and no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 20, 22-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. All independent claims recited the limitation of “wherein the second change type is a breaking change type indicative of a change that may cause other software resources to fail or break”. The phrase “may” to render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are rejected based on their respective dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20, 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 20, it recites receive a query specifying a change to a first transformer of a data processing pipeline, the first transformer receiving an existing data stream of data records from a first data source and providing transformed data records to a first data sink; identify a change type of the change to the first transformer specified in the query, wherein the change type is at least one of a first change type or a second change type; the first change type is a non-breaking change type indicative of a change that will not cause other software resources to fail or break; and the second change type is a breaking change type indicative of a change that may cause other software resources to fail or break: identifying the change type comprises identifying a parameter associated with the query and the parameter is indicative of the change type; in response to identifying the change type is the first change type: change the first transformer in accordance with the query; and provide transformed output of the changed first transformer to the first data sink; and in response to identifying the change type is the second change type: deploy a second transformer, being a changed version of the first transformer as specified in the query, to operate in parallel with the first transformer; and provide transformed output of the second transformer to a second data sink while continuing to provide transformed output of the first transformer to the first data sink.
The claim recited the limitation of “identify a change type of the change to the first transformer specified in the query, wherein the change type is at least one of a first change type or a second change type; the first change type is a non-breaking change type indicative of a change that will not cause other software resources to fail or break; and the second change type is a breaking change type indicative of a change that may cause other software resources to fail or break: identifying the change type comprises identifying a parameter associated with the query and the parameter is indicative of the change type” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a change can be identify by reading received data which is a mental process. Therefore, the identifying limitation is a mental process.
The claim recites the additional elements of receive a query, change the first transformer, provide transformed output, deploy a second transformer, and provide transformed output which are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receive a query, change the first transformer, provide transformed output, deploy a second transformer, and provide transformed output steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 22 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: in response to identifying a non-breaking change type: assign an updated version code to said changed first transformer indicative of the non-breaking change type, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 22 and includes all the limitations of claim 22. Therefore, claim 23 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: cause the changed first transformer to retrieve, from the first data source, a predetermined number of prior data records transformed by the first transformer before changing the first transformer, and transforming said prior data records using the changed first transformer before transforming newly-received data records, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 24 is dependent on claim 23 and includes all the limitations of claim 23. Therefore, claim 24 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: augment the data records produced by the changed first transformer to indicate the updated version code of the changed first transformer, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 25 is dependent on claim 24 and includes all the limitations of claim 24. Therefore, claim 25 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data records include metadata indicating the updated version code, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 26 is dependent on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 26 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: in response to identifying a breaking change type: assign an updated version code to the second transformer indicative of the non-breaking change type; and assign the updated version code to the second data sink, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 27 is dependent on claim 23 and includes all the limitations of claim 23. Therefore, claim 27 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: further in response to identifying a breaking change type: deploying an aggregator associated with the first and second data sink version codes for providing to consumers of the existing data stream a unioned version of transformed data records from said first and second data sinks, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 28 is dependent on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 28 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the parameter includes a version code indicative of the change type, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 29 is dependent on claim 28 and includes all the limitations of claim 28. Therefore, claim 29 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the version code is user-proved and has a predetermined format, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 30 is dependent on claim 29 and includes all the limitations of claim 29. Therefore, claim 30 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the predetermined format includes at least two sub-sections, and wherein a change in a specific one of said sub-sections from the current version of the first transformer indicates a non-breaking change and a change in a specific other of said sub-sections from a current version indicates a breaking change, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 31 is dependent on claim 30 and includes all the limitations of claim 30. Therefore, claim 31 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the predetermined format comprises x.y in any known order and wherein a change to x indicates a breaking change and a change to y indicates a non-breaking change, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 32 is dependent on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 32 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein identifying the change type comprises identifying using static analysis on the query whether it implements a non-breaking change or a breaking change, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 33 is dependent on claim 20 and includes all the limitations of claim 20. Therefore, claim 33 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the breaking change type is indicative of a schema change, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
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 (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.
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 20, 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (Pub. No. : US 20190391887 A1) in the view of Hagiwara et al. (Pub. No. : US 20180144018 A1) and Jayanti Venkata et al. (Pub. NO. : US 20160087854 A1)
As to claim 20 Shah teaches system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute program instructions to cause the system to:
receive a query specifying a change to a first transformer of a data processing pipeline (paragraph [0025]: At operation 310, the transformation drift engine 124 detects a change in a transformation, generates a de facto definition and accesses the transformation definition database 131 (i.e. query) to obtain a stored definition of the transformations. Note that the “de facto definition” can be interpreted as “specifying a change” as clamed), the first transformer receiving an existing data stream of data records from a first data source and providing transformed data records to a first data sink (paragraph [0015]: data pipeline 106 (i.e. first transformer) is a set of one or more coupled subsystems 106a-106e that process and/or transform data extracted from data source(s) 107a-107b and provide the processed data to data sink(s) 108a-108b);
identify a change type of the change to the first transformer specified in the query, wherein the change type is at least one of a first change type or a second change type (paragraph [0025], [0029]: The transformation drift engine 124 compares the de facto definition of the transformations to the stored definition of the transformations. If the comparison returns a difference between the de facto definition of stored definition of the transformations such as an added transformation, or a suppressed transformation (i.e. a first change type or a second change type), the transformation drift engine 124 has detected a change (i.e. identifying a change) in a transformation performed by the upstream subsystem 106b on a data field of an output dataset of the upstream subsystem 106b. Note that this limitation is further satisfied by the third reference Jayanti Venkata, see paragraphs [0068], [0182]);
in response to identifying the change type is the first change type (paragraph [0010]: The transformation drift engine detects the change in the transformation performed by the upstream subsystem):
change the first transformer in accordance with the query (paragraph [0026]-[0027], [0010]: The transformation drift engine performs a corrective transformation on the impacted data field of the input dataset of the downstream subsystem); and
provide transformed output of the changed first transformer to the first data sink (paragraph [0015]: provide the processed data to data sink 108a).
Shah does not explicitly disclose but Hagiwara teaches
in response to identifying the change type is the second change type (paragraph [0058]: the partitioner DT62-P in the present example allocates key1 to the data transformer (DT2) 62-2 and allocates key2 to the data transformer (DT2′) 62-2′):
deploy a second transformer, being a changed version of the first transformer as specified in the query, to operate in parallel with the first transformer (paragraph [0052], [0055]: one or more new data transformers (DT2′) 62-2′ are newly added in parallel with these one or more existing data transformers (DT) 62); and
provide transformed output of the second transformer to a second data sink (paragraph [0052]: “data pipe 64-c3” interpreted as data second data sink) while continuing to provide transformed output of the first transformer to the first data sink (paragraph [0052]: “data pipe 64-c2” interpreted as data second data sink. Note that Shah already teaches the first data sink 108a which continuously received data which would be similar to Hagiwara’s 64-c2).
wherein the first change type is a non-breaking change type indicative of a change that will not cause other software resources to fail or break, and wherein the second change type is a breaking change type indicative of a change that may cause other software resources to fail or break (paragraph [0035], [0043], [0060]: if the key value of a record to be processed has been changed before and after the change of the allocation of the records, there are cases where the data processing must be stopped (i.e. breaking change type --- software resources to fail or break). Furthermore, the data pipeline manager (DPM) 40 may receive (i) to (iii) described above and treat the received information as a request for changing the allocation of the data to existing data transformers (DT) 62 without changing the number of partitions (S100) (i.e. non-breaking change type). Instead, the manager of the system 100 may output a request to change the allocation of the data);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah by adding above limitation as taught by Hagiwara to speed up the data processing (Hagiwara, [0003]).
Shah and Hagiwara do not explicitly disclose but Jayanti Venkata teaches identifying the change type comprises identifying a parameter associated with the query and the parameter is indicative of the change type (paragraph [0014], [0070], [0074]: identifying an action process class associated with the type of change event). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah and Hagiwara by adding above limitation as taught by Jayanti Venkata to improve efficiency for communicating changes in access to an enterprise system and performing actions on remote devices in response to those changes (Jayanti Venkata, paragraph [0073]).
As to claim 22 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 21. Shah wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: in response to identifying a non-breaking change type: assign an updated version code to said changed first transformer indicative of the non-breaking change type (paragraph [0025]).
As to claim 23 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 22. Shah wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: cause the changed first transformer to retrieve, from the first data source, a predetermined number of prior data records transformed by the first transformer before changing the first transformer, and transforming said prior data records using the changed first transformer before transforming newly-received data records (paragraph [0025]).
As to claim 24 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 23. Shah wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to:augment the data records produced by the changed first transformer to indicate the updated version code of the changed first transformer (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
As to claim 25 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 24. Shah wherein the data records include metadata indicating the updated version code (paragraph [0016]).
As to claim 26 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 21. Hagiwara wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to: in response to identifying a breaking change type: assign an updated version code to the second transformer indicative of the non-breaking change type and assign the updated version code to the second data sink (paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 27 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 23. Shah wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute program instructions to further cause the system to:further in response to identifying a breaking change type: deploying an aggregator associated with the first and second data sink version codes for providing to consumers of the existing data stream a unioned version of transformed data records from said first and second data sinks (paragraph [0049]).
As to claim 28 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 21. Jayanti Venkata wherein the parameter includes a version code indicative of the change type (paragraphs [0021], [0165]).
As to claim 29 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 28. Jayanti Venkata teaches wherein the version code is user-proved and has a predetermined format (paragraphs [0165], [0168], [0180], [0136]-[0140]).
As to claim 30 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 29. Jayanti Venkata teaches wherein the predetermined format includes at least two sub-sections, and wherein a change in a specific one of said sub-sections from the current version of the first transformer indicates a non-breaking change and a change in a specific other of said sub-sections from a current version indicates a breaking change (paragraphs [0080], [0106]).
As to claim 31 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 30. Jayanti Venkata teaches wherein the predetermined format comprises x.y in any known order and wherein a change to x indicates a breaking change and a change to y indicates a non-breaking change (paragraphs [0136]-[0140]).
As to claim 32 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 21. Hagiwara wherein identifying the change type comprises identifying using static analysis on the query whether it implements a non-breaking change or a breaking change (paragraph [0058]).
As to claim 33 Shah together with Hagiwara and Jayanti Venkata teaches a system according to claim 20. Jayanti Venkata teaches wherein the breaking change type is indicative of a schema change (paragraph [0134]).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights