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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 11/25/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 08/08/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
By this amendment, claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending. Any objections and rejections not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
When considered in their proper context, these claim elements describe a specific technical system for automated data transformation and routing between incompatible computer systems with different data format requirements. The "trigger" is not a simple button press observable by a human, but rather a technical component that specifies "activation conditions and event detection criteria for determining when to initiate data processing and routing operations." This is coupled with a "mapping sub-component that defines field-level transformation rules for translating data structures data types and data formats between incompatible source and destination systems." The claimed system performs automated technical processes that cannot be accomplished mentally or through simple human observation.
…
The claimed invention provides a technical solution by implementing specialized components that automatically detect when data transformation is needed (via the trigger sub-component with its activation conditions and event detection criteria) and perform field-level transformation of data structures and data types between incompatible systems (via the mapping sub-component with its transformation rules). This automated transformation and routing system improves the functioning of computer networks and systems by enabling previously incompatible applications and systems to communicate effectively without manual intervention or custom coding for each integration.
With regard to point (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a mental process for the reasons in this Office Action’s 101 rejection below. In addition, Applicant discloses that the trigger sub-component and mapping sub-component are technical components which cannot be done mentally or through simple human observation. However, Applicant’s claims do not further describe the trigger sub-component and mapping sub-component in detail where an observed button press cannot be a trigger. Furthermore, “performing the destination action by transforming event data from a source data format to a destination-specific data format using the mapping sub-component”, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, if a person observes a trigger activating (such as observing a button press or inputting information in an application); then the person can mentally reformat event data based on an observed mapping. Thus, the recited limitations are merely abstract ideas (manual activities) that are automated (see MPEP § 2144.04(III)). Applicant also discloses that the invention improves of the functioning of computer networks and systems by enabling previously incompatible applications and systems to communicate effectively without manual intervention or custom coding for each integration. However, the invention does not solve any existing problems with computer networks and systems. The invention acts as an automated process to reformat data (which can be done mentally) and inputs the reformatted data into a different destination system. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
The amended claims recite a data transformation and routing system that automatically handles format incompatibilities between different systems and interface types. Chang describes a different system entirely - a PIAR management system that executes predefined recipes based on application triggers and actions. Chang does not teach the claimed data transformation functionality, the handling of format incompatibilities between systems, or the specific trigger and mapping sub components that enable automated data format transformation and routing operations. Because Chang fails to disclose these essential claim elements, Chang does not anticipate the independent claims. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should therefore be withdrawn.
With regard to point (b), Examiner disagrees with Applicant that Chang does not teach the specific trigger and mapping sub components that enable automated data format transformation and routing operations and “the handling of format incompatibilities” as Examiner’s previous non-final Office Action and Chang does read on Applicant’s amendments ([0037] “…an existing PIAR may map a date, in MMDDYYYY format, to an application-exposed field that requires the date in that format. The PIAR management system 100 detects that the third-party application has modified the third-party application field to require the date in DDMMYYYY format. Responsive to detecting the modification, the PIAR modification component 106 stores a modified application-exposed mapping. The modified mapping maps the user-exposed field to the modified application-exposed field, while reformatting the date. The modified application-exposed mapping need not be exposed to a user or require user input.”). However, due to Applicant’s amendments, Diekmann et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0004877 Al (hereafter Diekmann) has been introduced to cure deficiencies. Therefore, the claims are still rejected for the reasons in this Office Action’s 102 rejection below. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Ghosh does not remedy Chang's deficiencies. While the Examiner cites Ghosh for teaching that "the mapping sub-component is modifiable in a user interface without using code", Ghosh is directed to an entirely different technical field - event services modeling for human capital management systems. Ghosh teaches creating event flows for HR-related events like manager changes and employee relocations, not data transformation and routing between incompatible interface types as claimed. Ghosh's user interface modifications for event configurations do not address or cure Chang's fundamental failure to disclose the claimed data transformation architecture.
With regard to point (c), due to Applicant’s amendments, Diekmann et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0004877 Al (hereafter Diekmann) has been introduced to cure deficiencies. Therefore, the claims are still rejected for the reasons in this Office Action’s 102 rejection below. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 8, and 15, “translating data structures data types and data formats between” should read “translating data structures, data types, and data formats between”.
In Claims 1, 8, and 15, “transforming event data” should read “transforming the event data”.
In Claims 1, 8, and 15, “transmitting the transformed event data to the destination” should read “transmitting the transformed event data to the destination application”.
In Claims 2, 9, and 16, “includes invoking an API of the destination” should read “includes invoking an API of the destination application”.
In Claims 3, 10, and 17, “wherein the trigger defines one or more conditions to narrow the scope of the trigger” should read “wherein the trigger sub-component defines one or more conditions to narrow the scope of the trigger sub-component”.
In Claims 5, 12, and 19, “wherein transforming event data from a source data format to a destination-specific data format” should read “wherein transforming the event data from the source data format to the destination-specific data format”.
In Claims 6, 13, and 20, “wherein the trigger specifies” should read “wherein the trigger sub-component specifies”.
In Claims 7 and 14, “wherein the mapping is modifiable” should read “wherein the mapping sub-component is modifiable”.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to systems and falls within the statutory category of machines; Claims 8-14 are directed to methods and falls within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 15-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage media and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation of “based on an activation of the trigger sub-component, performing the destination action by transforming event data from a source data format to a destination-specific data format using the mapping sub-component”, as drafted, is a machine that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, if a person observes a trigger activating (such as observing a button press or inputting information in an application); then the person mentally reformats the event data based on an observed mapping.
Claim 8: It is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it follows the same reasoning for Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim 15: It is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it follows the same reasoning for Step 2A Prong 1.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will
evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “A system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer memories; a set of instructions stored in the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional element – “receiving a definition of a destination action for routing event data from one of a plurality of different interface types to a destination application having specific data format requirements, the definition of the destination action including (i) a trigger sub-component that specifies activation conditions and event detection criteria for determining when to initiate data processing and routing operations, and (ii) a mapping sub-component that defines field-level transformation rules for translating data structures data types and data formats between incompatible source and destination systems” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional element – “transmitting the transformed event data to the destination via an API call” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. After
having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been
concluded that the claims not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing
components and functions which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities are also Well-Understood,
Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the
following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions
when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or
as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network").
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the transmitting the transformed event data includes invoking an API of the destination” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the
trigger defines one or more conditions to narrow the scope of the trigger” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein a count
of the one or more conditions has a configurable maximum” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein transforming event data from a source data format to a destination-specific data format is based on input received via a graphical user interface” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Regarding Step 2B, these insignificant extra-solution activities are also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional and thus do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network". Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the trigger specifies one or more of an event type, event name, or event property value” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the mapping sub-component is modifiable in a user interface without using code” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 17, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 18, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diekmann et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0004877 Al (hereafter Diekmann).
Regarding claim 1, Diekmann anticipates the invention as claimed, including: A system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer memories; a set of instructions stored in the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations ([0080] “In an embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of any of the operations described herein and/or recited in any of the claims.”), the operations comprising: receiving a definition of a destination action for routing event data from one of a plurality of different interface types to a destination application having specific data format requirements, the definition of the destination action including (i) a trigger sub-component that specifies activation conditions and event detection criteria for determining when to initiate data processing and routing operations, and (ii) a mapping sub-component that defines field-level transformation rules for translating data structures data types and data formats between incompatible source and destination systems ([0039] “…A particular plug-in application may be used as a "trigger application," i.e., an application to be monitored for detection of a trigger condition. Alternatively or in addition, a particular plug-in application may be used as an "action application," i.e., an application that executes an action when a trigger condition is satisfied.”, [0027] “In an embodiment, a user selects, via the GUI and prior to a particular instance of evaluating a particular operation of a PIAR definition, a variable from a plurality of candidate variables for the operation. The operation may be a trigger operation or an action operation. A user also selects, via the GUI, a transformation operation to be applied to the variable. The transformation operation is one of a plurality of displayed candidate transformation operations for the variable.”, [0028] “The PIAR management application generates a PIAR definition object defining the particular trigger, the particular action, and the transformation operation. The PIAR management application stores the PIAR definition object for evaluation on an ongoing basis.”, [0052] “In an embodiment, the user interface 102 includes options to specify one or more transformation operations to be applied to one or more variables used in a PIAR. A transformation operation is an operation that takes a particular value of a variable and modifies it to obtain a transformed value. For example, a transformation operation may concatenate data (e.g., two strings), filter out undesirable data (e.g. inappropriate information, or sensitive information such as personally identifiable information, convert lowercase to uppercase (or vice versa), transform a variable of one data type to a variable of another data type (e.g., a string to a date or number), or perform any other kind of transformation that may be applied to variables…”, [0053] “…A transformation operation may be applied to a variable that is being used as input to an action. For example, if an action requires a date as input, the value of a string variable may be transformed to a date…”, Note: The trigger is interpreted as the trigger sub-component, and the PIAR definition object defining the particular trigger, the particular action, and the transformation operation is interpreted as the mapping sub-component); based on an activation of the trigger sub-component, performing the destination action by transforming event data from a source data format to a destination-specific data format using the mapping sub-component ([0027] “In an embodiment, a user selects, via the GUI and prior to a particular instance of evaluating a particular operation of a PIAR definition, a variable from a plurality of candidate variables for the operation. The operation may be a trigger operation or an action operation. A user also selects, via the GUI, a transformation operation to be applied to the variable. The transformation operation is one of a plurality of displayed candidate transformation operations for the variable.”, [0028] “The PIAR management application generates a PIAR definition object defining the particular trigger, the particular action, and the transformation operation. The PIAR management application stores the PIAR definition object for evaluation on an ongoing basis.”, [0052] “In an embodiment, the user interface 102 includes options to specify one or more transformation operations to be applied to one or more variables used in a PIAR. A transformation operation is an operation that takes a particular value of a variable and modifies it to obtain a transformed value. For example, a transformation operation may concatenate data (e.g., two strings), filter out undesirable data (e.g. inappropriate information, or sensitive information such as personally identifiable information, convert lowercase to uppercase (or vice versa), transform a variable of one data type to a variable of another data type (e.g., a string to a date or number), or perform any other kind of transformation that may be applied to variables…”, [0053] “…A transformation operation may be applied to a variable that is being used as input to an action. For example, if an action requires a date as input, the value of a string variable may be transformed to a date…”) and transmitting the transformed event data to the destination via an API call ([0053] “…A transformation operation may be applied to a variable that is being used as input to an action. For example, if an action requires a date as input, the value of a string variable may be transformed to a date…”, [0049] “…A service 111 may be implemented separately from or as a component of an action application. A service 111 may use an application programming interface (API) corresponding to an action application, to use the action application for executing an action according to a PIAR…”, Note: The transformed variable is interpreted as the transformed event data, and the API corresponding to the action application is interpreted as the API of the destination).
Regarding claim 2, Diekmann anticipates: The system of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the transformed event data includes invoking an API of the destination ([0053] “…A transformation operation may be applied to a variable that is being used as input to an action. For example, if an action requires a date as input, the value of a string variable may be transformed to a date…”, [0049] “…A service 111 may be implemented separately from or as a component of an action application. A service 111 may use an application programming interface (API) corresponding to an action application, to use the action application for executing an action according to a PIAR…”, Note: The transformed variable is interpreted as the transformed event data, and the API corresponding to the action application is interpreted as the API of the destination).
Regarding claim 3, Diekmann anticipates: The system of claim 1, wherein the trigger defines one or more conditions to narrow the scope of the trigger ([0036] “In an embodiment, one or more actions in a PIAR may be performed conditionally, based on evaluation of the initiating trigger or, if the action is part of a series of actions, evaluation of output from a preceding action. For example, conditional logic (e.g., if, then, else, etc.) may be used to determine, in response to detecting a trigger, the particular sequence of actions, if any, to perform. The PAIR management system 100 may include an interface allowing a user to define such conditional logic for a particular PIAR.”, [0037] “In an embodiment, evaluating a trigger and/or output of a preceding action may involve looping through multiple variable values. For example, a trigger or action may supply an array of values, and evaluating the trigger or action may involve iteratively evaluating (or "looping through") each of those values. Looping through such values may itself be subject to conditional logic. Many different combinations of conditional logic and/or looping through variables may be used to determine the particular action(s), if any, performed when a trigger is detected.”, Note: The variable values of a trigger of a PIAR are interpreted as the one or more conditions).
Regarding claim 4, Diekmann anticipates: The system of claim 3, wherein a count of the one or more conditions has a configurable maximum ([0037] “In an embodiment, evaluating a trigger and/or output of a preceding action may involve looping through multiple variable values. For example, a trigger or action may supply an array of values, and evaluating the trigger or action may involve iteratively evaluating (or "looping through") each of those values. Looping through such values may itself be subject to conditional logic. Many different combinations of conditional logic and/or looping through variables may be used to determine the particular action(s), if any, performed when a trigger is detected.”, Note: A user configures the number of variable values (conditions) that must be met for a trigger to be detected).
Regarding claim 5, Diekmann anticipates: The system of claim 1, wherein transforming event data from a source data format to a destination-specific data format is based on input received via a graphical user interface ([0027] “In an embodiment, a user selects, via the GUI and prior to a particular instance of evaluating a particular operation of a PIAR definition, a variable from a plurality of candidate variables for the operation. The operation may be a trigger operation or an action operation. A user also selects, via the GUI, a transformation operation to be applied to the variable. The transformation operation is one of a plurality of displayed candidate transformation operations for the variable.”, [0028] “The PIAR management application generates a PIAR definition object defining the particular trigger, the particular action, and the transformation operation. The PIAR management application stores the PIAR definition object for evaluation on an ongoing basis.”, [0052] “In an embodiment, the user interface 102 includes options to specify one or more transformation operations to be applied to one or more variables used in a PIAR. A transformation operation is an operation that takes a particular value of a variable and modifies it to obtain a transformed value. For example, a transformation operation may concatenate data (e.g., two strings), filter out undesirable data (e.g. inappropriate information, or sensitive information such as personally identifiable information, convert lowercase to uppercase (or vice versa), transform a variable of one data type to a variable of another data type ( e.g., a string to a date or number), or perform any other kind of transformation that may be applied to variables…”, [0053] “…A transformation operation may be applied to a variable that is being used as input to an action. For example, if an action requires a date as input, the value of a string variable may be transformed to a date…”).
Regarding claim 6, Diekmann anticipates: The system of claim 1, wherein the trigger specifies one or more of an event type, event name, or event property value ([0037] “In an embodiment, evaluating a trigger and/or output of a preceding action may involve looping through multiple variable values. For example, a trigger or action may supply an array of values, and evaluating the trigger or action may involve iteratively evaluating (or "looping through") each of those values. Looping through such values may itself be subject to conditional logic. Many different combinations of conditional logic and/or looping through variables may be used to determine the particular action(s), if any, performed when a trigger is detected.”).
Regarding claim 7, Diekmann anticipates: The system of claim 1, wherein the mapping sub-component is modifiable in a user interface without using code ([0027] “In an embodiment, a user selects, via the GUI and prior to a particular instance of evaluating a particular operation of a PIAR definition, a variable from a plurality of candidate variables for the operation. The operation may be a trigger operation or an action operation. A user also selects, via the GUI, a transformation operation to be applied to the variable. The transformation operation is one of a plurality of displayed candidate transformation operations for the variable.”, [0028] “The PIAR management application generates a PIAR definition object defining the particular trigger, the particular action, and the transformation operation. The PIAR management application stores the PIAR definition object for evaluation on an ongoing basis.”, [0052] “In an embodiment, the user interface 102 includes options to specify one or more transformation operations to be applied to one or more variables used in a PIAR. A transformation operation is an operation that takes a particular value of a variable and modifies it to obtain a transformed value. For example, a transformation operation may concatenate data (e.g., two strings), filter out undesirable data (e.g. inappropriate information, or sensitive information such as personally identifiable information, convert lowercase to uppercase (or vice versa), transform a variable of one data type to a variable of another data type ( e.g., a string to a date or number), or perform any other kind of transformation that may be applied to variables…”, [0053] “…A transformation operation may be applied to a variable that is being used as input to an action. For example, if an action requires a date as input, the value of a string variable may be transformed to a date…”, Note: The PIAR definition object defining the particular trigger, the particular action, and the transformation operation is interpreted as the mapping sub-component).
Regarding claim 8, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, it is a process claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Diekmann further anticipates a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising ([0080] “In an embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of any of the operations described herein and/or recited in any of the claims.”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 20230103896 A1 is cited because it discloses selecting, in a user interface, a source and an event wherein the event transmits a data packet from the source in response to a trigger at the source element; and it also discloses selecting, in the user interface, a target and input field corresponding to the event associated with the source.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be
shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims.
That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to
page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist
Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Y Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196