DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 12/5/2024.
Claim 1-17 are pending. Claim 1 and 7 are amended. Claim 1-17 are rejected.
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.
Claim 1, 4-6 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to statutory category product. The claim recites “extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors, determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission; analyzing the second set of feature vectors to determine whether the prior outbound transmission includes a request for the particular value”, “extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission” and “updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission”. The processes of extracting features from inbound and outbound messages and generating feature vectors, determination of relation and between inbound and outbound transmissions based on feature vector comparison and determining if a data value is being requested in an earlier transmission or messages and further extracting a particular value from message and updating the data object with a particular value involve observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, recited limitations fall into abstract idea groupings of mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) under Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG. Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – “receiving an inbound transmission comprising a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore” and “responsive to determining that (a) the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission, and (b) the prior outbound transmission includes the request for the particular value for the particular parameter of the data object. Above mentioned additional clam elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). The claim further recites - “applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission…” - use of machine learning may be characterized as using machine learning as a tool or generally linking the abstract ideas identified above to the technology of AI and machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h). This generic high-level recitation of machine learning is nothing more than mere instructions to apply on a computer with a possible field of use limited to machine-learning field. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving request for data is mere data gathering well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 and 5 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend and further recite limitations – “particular value is extracted from the editable data object in the inbound transmission ” and further “determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to a prior outbound transmission requesting the particular value comprises identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission”. The process of extracting data and determining relationship between inbound and outbound transmissions/messages and identifying some common value in transmissions involves observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – “requesting the particular value”. Above mentioned step of receiving requested data recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving requested data is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 4 and 5 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend and further recite limitations “the prior outbound transmission comprises an editable data object; the inbound transmission includes the particular value in the editable data object” and further “wherein the common reference comprises one or more of an outbound transmission identifier, a data object identifier, a parameter name, or a parameter identifier”. Above mentioned steps of marking data using identifier recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering using labels as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not provide integration into a practical application. Therefore claim 6 is still directed to an abstract idea of mental process under Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of labelling data using identifier is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is directed to statutory category product. The claim recites “extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission transmitted prior to the inbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors: determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission; analyzing the second set of feature vectors to determine whether the prior outbound transmission includes a request for the data verification for the particular value”, “extracting the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission” and further “updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission”. The processes of extracting features from inbound and outbound messages and generating feature vectors, determination of relation and between inbound and outbound transmissions based on feature vector comparison and determining if a data is being requested for validation in transmissions or messages and updating the data object with extraction of data involve observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, recited limitations fall into abstract idea groupings of mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) under Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG. Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – receiving an inbound transmission comprising a data verification for a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore; and responsive to determining (a) that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission, and (b) that the prior outbound transmission includes the request for the data verification for the particular value. Above mentioned additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). The claim further recites - “applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission…” - use of machine learning may be characterized as using machine learning as a tool or generally linking the abstract ideas identified above to the technology of AI and machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h). This generic high-level recitation of machine learning is nothing more than mere instructions to apply on a computer with a possible field of use limited to machine-learning field. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving request for data is mere data gathering well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8-10 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend and further recite limitations – “updating the datastore with the particular value in the prior outbound transmission is responsive to identifying a confirmation in the inbound transmission confirming the data verification of the particular value”, “extracting the particular value from the data object and updating the datastore with the extracted particular value” and further “determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission comprises identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission”. The process of updating data object with a particular value upon receiving a confirmation, extracting data and determining relationship between inbound and outbound transmissions/messages and identifying some common value in transmissions involve observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as In particular, the claim recites additional elements – “inbound transmission” and “outbound transmission” . Above mentioned step of receiving requested data recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving requested data by outbound transmission is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 8, 9 and 10 not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 11 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend and further recite limitations “the common reference comprises one or more of an outbound transmission identifier, a data object identifier, a parameter name, or a parameter identifier”. Above mentioned steps of marking data using identifier recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering using labels as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not provide integration into a practical application. Therefore claim 11 is still directed to an abstract idea of mental process under Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of labelling data using identifier is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat, Prasanna et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200117680), hereafter referred as to “Bapat”, in view of Souder, Michael et al (PGPUB Document No. 20180322362), hereafter, referred to as “Souder”, in further view of Lock, Hendrik et al (PGPUB Document No. 20080163252), hereafter, referred to as “Lock”.
Claim 1(Currently Amended), Bapat teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, which when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising(Bapat, para 0139 discloses computer processors, memory and storages for executing instructions): receiving an inbound transmission comprising a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore(Bapat, para 0005 discloses sending (outbound) request for a data value change and in response receiving(inbound) changed value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository” );
analyzing the second set of feature vectors to determine whether the prior outbound transmission includes a request for the particular value; responsive to determining that (a) the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission, and (b) the prior outbound transmission includes the request for the particular value for the particular parameter of the data object(Bapat, Fig. 4 and para 0121 disclose determining the change and relation between messages “In step 412, the event receiver at the target repository receives the messages. In step 414, the event actor determines the type of changes to which the event messages relate”; where prior art Souder to be discussed later teaches first and second set of feature vectors):
But Bapat does not explicitly teach applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission to extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors, determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission; extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission; and updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of feature vector comparison for identifying linkage Souder teaches applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission to extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors, determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission(Souder. Para 0005 discloses comparing two sets of vectors and associating matching vector for an identifier “method further comprises comparing the set of unidentified vectors to the plurality of sets of known vectors to identify a matching set of known vectors and an associated known pallet identifier” ; similar teaching can be applied for determining relationship between inbound and outbound transmission/messages);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of determining relationship between two sets of data by comparing their respective feature vectors of Souder into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat to produce an expected result of validating and saving the corrected field value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the identification process by using low cost software resources(Souder, para 0053).
But Bapat and Souder don’t explicitly teach extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission; and updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data extraction from message Lock teaches extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission; and updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission (Lock, para 0023 discloses extracting data value/object from a message and sending the data to backend database (element 108) for update “receives a data message with the updated data objects from the mobile device 102. The middleware system 104 processes the data message, extracting the updated data object and submits the data object to the back-end system 106. The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108”);
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of extracting data from a message and validating data object before updating of Lock into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat and Souder to produce an expected result of validating and saving the corrected field value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to validate data before saving to ensure data accuracy and integrity(Lock, para 0004 & 0028).
Claim 4 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Lock further teaches the prior outbound transmission comprises an editable data object; the inbound transmission includes the particular value in the editable data object; and the particular value is extracted from the editable data object in the inbound transmission(Lock, para 0023 discloses extracting data value/object from a message and sending the data to backend database (element 108) for update/edit “receives a data message with the updated data objects from the mobile device 102. The middleware system 104 processes the data message, extracting the updated data object and submits the data object to the back-end system 106. The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108”; where prior art Bapat discloses inbound and outbound messages containing data).
Claim 7(Currently Amended), Bapat One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, which when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising(Bapat, para 0139 discloses computer processors, memory and storages for executing instructions):
analyzing the second set of feature vectors to determine whether the prior outbound transmission includes a request for the data verification for the particular value; and responsive to determining (a) that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission, and (b) that the prior outbound transmission includes the request for the data verification for the particular value(Bapat, para 0005 discloses sending (outbound) request for a data value change and in response receiving(inbound) changed value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository” ; Fig. 4 and para 0121 further disclose determining the change and relation between messages “In step 412, the event receiver at the target repository receives the messages. In step 414, the event actor determines the type of changes to which the event messages relate” ):
But Bapat does not explicitly teach receiving an inbound transmission comprising a data verification for a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore; applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission to extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission transmitted prior to the inbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors: determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission; extracting the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission; and updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of feature vector comparison for identifying linkage Souder teaches applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission to extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission transmitted prior to the inbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors: determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission(Souder. Para 0005 discloses comparing two sets of vectors and associating matching vector for an identifier “method further comprises comparing the set of unidentified vectors to the plurality of sets of known vectors to identify a matching set of known vectors and an associated known pallet identifier”; similar teaching can be applied for determining relationship between inbound and outbound transmission/messages);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of determining relationship between two sets of data by comparing their respective feature vectors of Souder into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat to produce an expected result of validating and saving the corrected field value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the identification process by using low cost software resources(Souder, para 0053).
But Bapat and Souder don’t explicitly teach receiving an inbound transmission comprising a data verification for a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore; extracting the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission; and updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data extraction from message Lock teaches receiving an inbound transmission comprising a data verification for a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore(Lock, para 23 discloses a verification/validation message (inbound transmission is being received by user device which verifies values against data object stored in database “The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108. If there are no errors, the process continues in accordance known operating techniques, where the back-end system may thereupon process the order and send a verification message to the mobile device 102 through the middleware system 104”); extracting the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission; and updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission(Lock, para 0023 discloses extracting data value/object from a message and sending the data to backend database (element 108) for update “receives a data message with the updated data objects from the mobile device 102. The middleware system 104 processes the data message, extracting the updated data object and submits the data object to the back-end system 106. The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108”);
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of extracting data from a message and validating data object before updating of Lock into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat and Souder to produce an expected result of validating and saving the corrected field value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to validate data before saving to ensure data accuracy/integrity(Lock, para 0004 & 0028).
Claim 8 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 7 and Lock further teaches wherein the updating the datastore with the particular value in the prior outbound transmission is responsive to identifying a confirmation in the inbound transmission confirming the data verification of the particular value (Lock, para 23 discloses a verification/validation message (inbound transmission is being received by user device which verifies values against data object stored in database “The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108. If there are no errors, the process continues in accordance known operating techniques, where the back-end system may thereupon process the order and send a verification message to the mobile device 102 through the middleware system 104”).
Claim 9 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 8 and Bapat further teaches wherein: the prior outbound transmission comprises a data object that includes the particular value(Bapat, para 005 further teaches requesting(outbound transmission) for particular change value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository”);
Lock further teaches responsive to identifying the confirmation in the inbound transmission, extracting the particular value from the data object and updating the datastore with the extracted particular value(Lock, para 23 discloses a verification/validation message (inbound transmission is being received by user device which verifies values against data object stored in database “The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108. If there are no errors, the process continues in accordance known operating techniques, where the back-end system may thereupon process the order and send a verification message to the mobile device 102 through the middleware system 104”).
Claim 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat, Prasanna et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200117680), hereafter referred as to “Bapat”, in view of Souder, Michael et al (PGPUB Document No. 20180322362), hereafter, referred to as “Souder”, in further view of Lock, Hendrik et al (PGPUB Document No. 20080163252), hereafter, referred to as “Lock”, in further view of Dubois, Pierre-Francois et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200193052), hereafter, referred to as “Dubois”.
Claim 2 (Previously Presented), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 1, but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: identifying a first authorization level associated with the prior outbound transmission; determining a minimum authorization level needed to update the datastore with the particular value; and responsive to determining the first authorization level meets or exceeds the minimum authorization level, updating the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data updating data based on permitted access level Dubois teaches further comprising: identifying a first authorization level associated with the prior outbound transmission; determining a minimum authorization level needed to update the datastore with the particular value; and responsive to determining the first authorization level meets or exceeds the minimum authorization level, updating the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission (Dubois, para 32-34 discloses determination of authorization level of the request (outbound transmission) to update data and perform update/replace operation if authorization level is higher than an authorization level “a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter; replacing, in said base, the value of the parameter, which value is associated with each combination of a unique identifier and of the identifier of said given online service, with said modified value. the replacement is implemented only if the modified parameter value corresponds to a security level higher than the initial value”).
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate saving the updated data values based data access level of Dubois into the identifying changes in message contents and saving the updated data values in an incoming message of Bapat, Souder and Lock to produce an expected result of updating data value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to introduce a balance between security and flexibility for online applications by implementing data update authorization level check and outbound transmission/message level (Dubois, para 008-0013) .
Claim 3 (Original), Bapat, Souder, Lock and Dubois teach all the limitations of claim 2 and Dubois further teaches further comprising: determining a second authorization level associated with the inbound transmission; and responsive to determining the second authorization level meets or exceeds the minimum authorization level, updating the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission(Dubois, para 32-34 discloses determination of authorization level of the request (outbound transmission) to update data and perform update/replace operation if authorization level is higher than an authorization level and Dubois’ disclosed teachings can similarly be applied to inbound transmission as well “a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter; replacing, in said base, the value of the parameter, which value is associated with each combination of a unique identifier and of the identifier of said given online service, with said modified value. the replacement is implemented only if the modified parameter value corresponds to a security level higher than the initial value”).
Claim 12 (Previously Presented), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 7, but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: identifying a first authorization level associated with the prior outbound transmission; determining a minimum authorization level needed to update the datastore with the particular value; and responsive to determining the first authorization level meets or exceeds the minimum authorization level, updating the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data updating data based on permitted access level Dubois teaches further comprising: identifying a first authorization level associated with the prior outbound transmission; determining a minimum authorization level needed to update the datastore with the particular value; and responsive to determining the first authorization level meets or exceeds the minimum authorization level, updating the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission (Dubois, para 32-34 discloses determination of authorization level of the request (outbound transmission) to update data and perform update/replace operation if authorization level is higher than an authorization level “a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter; replacing, in said base, the value of the parameter, which value is associated with each combination of a unique identifier and of the identifier of said given online service, with said modified value. the replacement is implemented only if the modified parameter value corresponds to a security level higher than the initial value”).
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate saving the updated data values based data access level of Dubois into the identifying changes in message contents and saving the updated data values in an incoming message of Bapat, , Souder and Lock to produce an expected result of updating data value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to introduce a balance between security and flexibility for online applications by implementing data update authorization level check and outbound transmission/message level (Dubois, para 008-0013) .
Claim 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat, Prasanna et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200117680), hereafter referred as to “Bapat”, in view of Lock, Hendrik et al (PGPUB Document No. 20080163252), hereafter, referred to as “Lock”, in further view of Dubois, Pierre-Francois et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200193052), hereafter, referred to as “Dubois”.
Claim 13 (Previously presented), Bapat teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, which when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising(Bapat, para 0139 discloses computer processors, memory and storages for executing instructions): receiving an inbound transmission, the inbound transmission including a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore(Bapat, para 0005 discloses sending (outbound) request for a data value change and in response receiving(inbound) changed value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository” ); determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to a prior outbound transmission(Bapat, Fig. 4 and para 0121 disclose determining the change and relation between messages(inbound/outbound) “In step 412, the event receiver at the target repository receives the messages. In step 414, the event actor determines the type of changes to which the event messages relate” );
But Bapat does not explicitly teach identifying a source of the prior outbound transmission; and determining a first authorization level associated with the source of the prior outbound transmission; responsive to determining that the first authorization level associated with the source, of the prior outbound transmission, is above the minimum authorization level needed to update a datastore:
However, in the same field of endeavor of data updating data based on permitted access level Dubois teaches identifying a source of the prior outbound transmission(Dubois, para 0026 discloses request/outbound transmission is identifying requesting user or source (unique identifier of the user) “receiving, from the mobile terminal (1), a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the unique identifier of the user, the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter”);
Using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, examiner is interpreting the limitation “identifying a source of the prior outbound transmission” to mean user who is initiating the outbound transmission.
and determining a first authorization level associated with the source of the prior outbound transmission; responsive to determining that the first authorization level associated with the source, of the prior outbound transmission, is above the minimum authorization level needed to update a datastore(Dubois, para 32-34 discloses determination of authorization level of the request (outbound transmission) to update data and perform update/replace operation if authorization level is higher than an authorization level “a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter; replacing, in said base, the value of the parameter, which value is associated with each combination of a unique identifier and of the identifier of said given online service, with said modified value. the replacement is implemented only if the modified parameter value corresponds to a security level higher than the initial value”).
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate saving the updated data values based data access level of Dubois into the identifying changes in message and relationship between inbound and outbound transmissions of Bapat to produce an expected result of updating data value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implementing a balance between security and flexibility for online application by implementing data update authorization level check and outbound transmission/message level (Dubois, para 008-0013) .
But Bapat and Dubois don’t explicitly teach extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission; and updating the datastore with the particular value extracted from the inbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data extraction from message Lock teaches extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission; and updating the datastore with the particular value extracted from the inbound transmission(Lock, para 0023 discloses extracting data value/object from a message and sending the data to backend database (element 108) for update “receives a data message with the updated data objects from the mobile device 102. The middleware system 104 processes the data message, extracting the updated data object and submits the data object to the back-end system 106. The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108”);
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of extracting data from a message and validating data object before updating of Lock into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat and Dubois to produce an expected result of validating and saving the corrected field value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to validate data before saving to ensure data accuracy/integrity(Lock, para 0004 & 0028).
Claim 14 (previously presented), Bapat, Dubois and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 13 and Bapat further teaches wherein the extracting and updating operations are further responsive to determining that the prior outbound transmission requested the particular value (Bapat, para 0005 discloses sending (outbound) request for a data value change and in response receiving(inbound) changed value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository”; para 0018 further teaches in response to the message, perform update operation “in response to the determination, retrieving the new or updated data from the source data repository; and updating data stored in the target data repository based on the retrieved data and the change event message” ).
Claim 15 (Previously Presented), Bapat, Dubois and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 13 and Dubois further teaches further comprising: identifying a second source of the inbound transmission(Dubois, para 0026 discloses transmission sources (first, second etc.) is getting identified user/source (unique identifier of the user) “receiving, from the mobile terminal (1), a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the unique identifier of the user, the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter”); determining that the second source is associated with a second authorization level; and determining that both the first authorization level and the second authorization level are above the minimum authorization level needed to update the datastore prior to the extracting and updating operations (Dubois, para 32-34 discloses determination of authorization level of transmissions(first, second transmission or messages) to update data and perform update/replace operation if authorization level is higher than an authorization level “a request to modify the value of said parameter, comprising the identifier of said given online service and the modified value of said parameter; replacing, in said base, the value of the parameter, which value is associated with each combination of a unique identifier and of the identifier of said given online service, with said modified value. the replacement is implemented only if the modified parameter value corresponds to a security level higher than the initial value”).
Claim 17(Original), Bapat, Dubois and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 13 and Lock further teaches wherein: the inbound transmission comprises an editable data object that includes the particular value in the editable data object; and the extracting operation comprises extracting the particular value from the editable data object in the inbound transmission (Lock, para 0023 discloses extracting data value/object from a message and sending the data to backend database (element 108) for update/edit “receives a data message with the updated data objects from the mobile device 102. The middleware system 104 processes the data message, extracting the updated data object and submits the data object to the back-end system 106. The system 106 verifies this object against stored data in the database 108”; where prior art Bapat discloses inbound and outbound messages containing data).
Claim 18-20, Cancelled.
Claim 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat, Prasanna et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200117680), hereafter referred as to “Bapat”, in view of Souder, Michael et al (PGPUB Document No. 20180322362), hereafter, referred to as “Souder”, in view of Lock, Hendrik et al (PGPUB Document No. 20080163252), hereafter, referred to as “Lock”, in further view of Brandis, Marc (PGPUB Document No. 20210271666), hereafter, referred to as “Brandis”.
Claim 5 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Bapat further teaches wherein determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to a prior outbound transmission requesting the particular value (Bapat, Fig. 4 and para 0121 disclose determining the change and relation between messages “In step 412, the event receiver at the target repository receives the messages. In step 414, the event actor determines the type of changes to which the event messages relate”; para 005 further teaches requesting for particular change value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository”).
But Bapat, Souder and Lock don’t explicitly teach comprises identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data extraction from message Brandis teaches comprises identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission(Brandis, para 0015 discloses identifying a common reference such as interface and request identifier between response and reply (inbound/outbound) “determining send request data records and receive reply data records being associated to each other on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and a data field indicating a unique request identifier, or on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and contents of one or more data fields from the send request data record being replicated in the receive reply data record”).
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of identifying a common reference between request and response of Brandis into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat, Souder and Lock to produce an expected result of identifying reply and response messages by identifiers. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to uniquely identify association between inbound and outbound transmissions for finding requested data value from response using unique identifiers (Brandis, para 009 & 0010).
Claim 6 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 5 and Brandis further teaches wherein the common reference comprises one or more of an outbound transmission identifier, a data object identifier, a parameter name, or a parameter identifier (Brandis, para 0015 discloses a common reference such as request or outbound identifier “determining send request data records and receive reply data records being associated to each other on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and a data field indicating a unique request identifier, or on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and contents of one or more data fields from the send request data record being replicated in the receive reply data record”).
Claim 10 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 7 and Bapat further teaches wherein determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission comprises (Bapat, Fig. 4 and para 0121 disclose determining the change and relation between messages “In step 412, the event receiver at the target repository receives the messages. In step 414, the event actor determines the type of changes to which the event messages relate”; para 005 further teaches requesting for particular change value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository”).
But Bapat, Souder and Lock don’t explicitly teach identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data extraction from message Brandis teaches identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission (Brandis, para 0015 discloses identifying a common reference such as interface and request identifier between response and reply (inbound/outbound) “determining send request data records and receive reply data records being associated to each other on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and a data field indicating a unique request identifier, or on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and contents of one or more data fields from the send request data record being replicated in the receive reply data record”).
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of identifying a common reference between request and response of Brandis into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat, Souder and Lock to produce an expected result of identifying reply and response messages by identifiers. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to uniquely identify association between inbound and outbound transmissions for finding requested data value from response using unique identifiers (Brandis, para 009 & 0010).
Claim 11 (Original), Bapat, Souder and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 10 and Brandis further teaches wherein the common reference comprises one or more of an outbound transmission identifier, a data object identifier, a parameter name, or a parameter identifier (Brandis, para 0015 discloses a common reference such as request or outbound identifier “determining send request data records and receive reply data records being associated to each other on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and a data field indicating a unique request identifier, or on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and contents of one or more data fields from the send request data record being replicated in the receive reply data record”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat, Prasanna et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200117680), hereafter referred as to “Bapat”, in view of Dubois, Pierre-Francois et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200193052), hereafter, referred to as “Dubois”, in view of Lock, Hendrik et al (PGPUB Document No. 20080163252), hereafter, referred to as “Lock”, in further view of Brandis, Marc (PGPUB Document No. 20210271666), hereafter, referred to as “Brandis”.
Claim 16 (Original), Bapat, Dubois and Lock teach all the limitations of claim 13 and Bapat further teaches wherein determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to a prior outbound transmission comprises (Bapat, Fig. 4 and para 0121 disclose determining the change and relation/association between messages “In step 412, the event receiver at the target repository receives the messages. In step 414, the event actor determines the type of changes to which the event messages relate”; para 005 further teaches requesting for particular change value “sending a request for the one or more data values to the source data repository; receiving the one or more data values from the source data repository”).
But Bapat and Lock don’t explicitly teach identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data extraction from message Brandis teaches identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission (Brandis, para 0015 discloses identifying a common reference such as interface and request identifier between response and reply (inbound/outbound) “determining send request data records and receive reply data records being associated to each other on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and a data field indicating a unique request identifier, or on the basis of a data field indicating an interface identifier and contents of one or more data fields from the send request data record being replicated in the receive reply data record”).
Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of identifying a common reference between request and response of Brandis into the feature of data change information in inbound/outbound messages of Bapat, Dubois and Lock to produce an expected result of identifying reply and response messages by identifiers. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to uniquely identify association between inbound and outbound transmissions for finding requested data value from response using unique identifiers (Brandis, para 009 & 0010).
Response to Arguments
I. 35 U.S.C §101
Updated detailed §101 abstract idea rejection to claim 1, 4-6 and 7-11 has been presented in this office action in response to claim amendments and applicant’s remarks.
II. 35 U.S.C §103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/5/2024 have been fully considered but are
moot because the independent claim 1 and 7 have been amended with newly added
features which applicant’s arguments are directed towards. Since claims have been amended with new features, a new ground of rejection is presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH A DAUD whose telephone number is (469)295-9283. The examiner can normally be reached M~F: 9:30 am~6:30 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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH A DAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights