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 .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2025 has been entered.
3. Claims 21, 25, 26, 39, and 40 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 are pending in this office action. This action is responsive to Applicant’s application filed 02/05/2025.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to amended features in claims 21, 39, and 40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
5. Claims 21-25, 27-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0171751 A1, hereinafter “Laurent”) in view of Rubio et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0062241 A1, hereinafter “Rubio”).
As to claim 21, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“A method, comprising: receiving a plurality of data records, the plurality of data records having a plurality of formats” as a method comprising: receiving a request to retrieve data from a data repository in a first data format; wherein a first subset of a plurality of records in the data repository comprises a first subset of the data in the first data format (claim 1).
“identifying a data-determinant query term of a query, to be applied to the plurality of data records, based on an indication of the plurality of formats of the plurality of data records” as
one or more records include information that explicitly identifies the data format of data in the record. The records may include a combination of one or more records that explicitly identify the corresponding data format and one or more records that do not explicitly identify the corresponding data format. For one or more records, the system may use contextual information, rather than information that explicitly identifies a data format, to determine the data format(s) of the data in the record (paragraphs 0024-0025).
“determining a first data record of the plurality of data records has a first format of the plurality of formats” as the request indicates that the data should in a particular data format. In the data repository, a subset of records includes a subset of the data already in the requested data format. Another subset of the records includes another subset of the data in a data format that is different from the requested data format. Based on the request, the system determines a context-sensitive operation for converting data from the different data format to the requested data format (paragraphs 0019, 0024-0025).
“determining a second data record of the plurality of data records has a second format of the plurality of formats, wherein the second format is different from the first format” as the system transmits, to the data repository, a query that includes at least one aggregation clause associated with the context-sensitive operation. Responsive to the query, the system receives results aggregated according to the aggregation clause(s). The results include aggregated data from the subset of records in the requested data format and aggregated data from the subset of records in the different data format. Using the context-sensitive operation, the system converts aggregated data from the different data format to the requested data format. The system generates a response to the request, based on the aggregated data that was already in the requested data format and the converted aggregated data (paragraphs 0019-0020).
“determining a second data record of the plurality of data records has a second format of the plurality of formats, wherein the second format is different from the first format” as for one or more records, the system may use contextual information, rather than information that explicitly identifies a data format, to determine the data formats of the data in the record. Specifically, the system may determine the data format based on other information that may be stored in the records, such as company identifiers, business unit identifiers, account identifiers, or any other type of information that allows the system to differentiate between different data formats of records (paragraphs 0019, 0025).
“applying the data-determinant query term of the query to a second field of the second data record in a second manner different from the first manner based on determining the second data record has the second format” as another subset of the records includes another subset of the data in a data format that is different from the requested data format. Based on the request, the system determines a context-sensitive operation for converting data from the different data format to the requested data format. The system transmits, to the data repository, a query that includes at least one aggregation clause associated with the context-sensitive operation. Responsive to the query, the system receives results aggregated according to the aggregation clause (paragraphs 0019-0022). The system may determine the data formats based on other information that may be stored in the records, such as company identifiers, business unit identifiers, account identifiers, or any other type of information that allows the system to differentiate between different data formats of records (paragraph 0025).
Laurent does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “applying the data-determinant query term of the query to a first field of the first data record in a first manner based on determining the first data record has the first format; generating a set of search results associated with query based on applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record and the second field of the second data record, wherein the data-determinant query term of the query is applied to the first field of the first data record in a first manner and the second field, that is different from the first field, of the second data record in a second manner based on the first data record having the first data format and the second data record having the second data format”.
Rubio teaches the uniform data dictionary (UDD) is a table conversion construct that is created and used to map specific data fields and data formats within a record of a direct marketing list to a common set of fields and formats. This allows many lists with related, but potentially different, fields and formats to be converted to a common standard and searched within that common standard by a common end user input query. Statistical and other searchable data (e.g., counts of records with common characteristics) is also much easier to generate across many segmented and different lists through use of this common UDD conversion interface (paragraph 0022). Once the software has been used by computer in order to create the bank of marketing lists over time, the list broker software is used to provide marketing lists from the list data bank out across the Internet to end users and list brokers. An end user, via a computer and a list broker, via a computer may transmit customer queries and perform list searches through the Internet and the interface on lists stored within or coupled to the computer. Using the list broker software, the computer processes the query to select certain lists and records within those lists from the bank. The queries, processing, and searches may be iteratively changed and optimized as the user sees fit. In fact, various data provided by the software with respect to the lists and data encountered by the end user may result in the end user or his list broker substantially modifying and changing the search target and criterion over time. The software will eventually allow the end user or list broker to perform one of several final processing operations on the list data and will enable the end user or list broker to receive delivery of a selected set of customer data from the computer that fits their queries and searches (paragraph 0030). All records that identify the same customer or are associated with the same customer in all lists within the bank are assigned a universal identification code (UIC). In other words, if the bank of marketing lists contains lists and the same customer or entity appears in four of the lists, then those four records which indicate the same customer will be marked in a table and on the record with a universal identification code so that the system can easily determine the presence and location of the same customer in the four different lists. The tables that can be used to identify multiple customer entries across multiple lists and to uniquely identify specific customers for tracking and search purposes may be stored as part of the marketing list conversion tables (paragraphs 0034, 0036). In addition to UIC and other ID processing performed on direct marketing list records, each data field/name/tag (e.g., birth date), data types, data ranges, and data formats (e.g., mm/dd/yy or mm-dd-yyyy) within each data item of a record may vary from list to list. In essence, purchasers of marketing lists have no current way to search for and select names across multiple list databases in a manner that is common and seamless. List databases employ unique field names and data values/ranges, group field populations into unique segments, utilize dissimilar data nomenclature. In addition, this data may have different data structures, formats, or data types that are used to store such information. It is not uncommon for marketing lists to be derived from a company's internal proprietary customer database where the lists differ significantly based upon the source application and historical development of internal data structures (paragraph 0078). After the UDD processing tables are created used to process the list against the UDD processing table in order to create a UDD mapping table or UDD conversion table, a table is built that allows each data field/tag and data value or format within the list to be quickly and dynamically translated into the universal search language used by the direct marketing lists. By way of example, assume a list has sex as a field where a scan of the list has determined that the exhaustive possible values for sex are M or Ff in that list. Assume also that the existing UDD conversion table has a field gender that contains either male or female. It will be determined by a relational or historical database or human intervention, that the sex field is the same as or overlaps substantially with, the existing gender field. Therefore, the UDD table will be created such that any search query of the lists using gender, such as find gender=male will search not only the gender fields in other existing lists, but will search the sex field in this list for the records containing the values M. In other words, when doing the search, the UDD conversion table will ensure that every M that is found in this sex field is equated to male resident within the global gender search field. In this manner, many different lists with different tags, fields, values, types, may be converted to respond accurately to a common search language or query (paragraphs 0085, 0088). The table contain the names/tags/fields which may be searched in the list. Therefore, using the age example may create the standard age search term Age_std in table. From the three lists, the system can determine that the exhaustive lists of values possible for the age field and place thirteen entries in table. Also, age may be flagged as an integer in table. Further, age may be searchable on all the typical integer operations and symbols as set forth in tables. However, list uses age_range, list uses age customer, and list uses age to identify the age_std universal tag set forth in table (paragraphs 0090, 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Laurent and Rubio before him/her, to modify Laurent generating a set of search results associated with query based on applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record and the second field of the second data record because that would provide links to other data structures or tables that expand upon or augment this information or the use of this information
as taught by Rubio (paragraph 0088).
As to Claim 22, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the first data record is associated with a first plurality of field identifiers for a first plurality of fields of the first data record, and wherein the second data record is associated with a second plurality of field identifiers for a second plurality of fields of the second data record” as wherein a first result in the plurality of results comprises first aggregated data, from the first subset of the plurality of records, in the first data format, and wherein a second result in the plurality of results comprises second aggregated data (claim 1).
As to Claim 23, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the first data record is associated with a first number of fields, and wherein the second data record is associated with a second number of fields” as (claim 2).
As to Claim 24, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the first data record is associated with a single field value for the first field of the first data record, and wherein the second data record is associated with a data structure comprising a plurality of properties and a plurality of values for the second field of the second data record” as (paragraph 0024).
As to Claim 25, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record comprises determining the first manner of applying the data-determinant query term of the query based on metadata associated with the first data record” as (paragraphs 0019-0020).
As to Claim 27, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein identifying the data determinant query term of the query comprises identifying the data-determinant query term of the query based on an identification of a query command that precedes the data-determinant query term of the query” as (paragraph 0043).
As to Claim 28, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein identifying the data-determinant query term of the query comprises identifying the data-determinant query term of the based on a determination that the plurality of data records includes heterogeneous data” as (paragraph 0035)
As to Claim 29, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein identifying the data-determinant query term of the query comprises identifying the data-determinant query term of the query based on determining the first data record has the first format and determining the second data record has the second format” as (paragraph 0025).
As to Claim 30, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein identifying the data-determinant query term of the query comprises: determining that the first data record comprises a first set of fields and a first set of field values; and determining that the second data record comprises a second set of fields and a second set of field values” as (paragraph 0090).
As to Claim 31, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record comprises: determining that the data-determinant query term of the query corresponds to a field identifier associated with the first field of the first data record; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to a field value of the first field of the first data record” as (claim 11).
As to Claim 32, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record comprises determining that a first portion of the data-determinant query term of the query corresponds to a field identifier associated with the first field of the first data record, and wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises determining that a second portion of the data-determinant query term of the query corresponds to a sub-field identifier associated with a sub-field of the second field of the second data record” as (paragraph 0043).
As to Claim 33, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises: determining that a first portion of the data-determinant query term of the query corresponds to a data structure identifier of the second data record; determining that a second portion of the data-determinant query term of the query corresponds to a property identifier of a property of a data structure corresponding to the data structure identifier; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to a property value of the property” as (paragraph 0034).
As to Claim 34, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises: determining that the data-determinant query term of the query does not correspond to a field identifier of the second data record; identifying a dataset associated with the second data record based on the data-determinant query term of the query: determining a value associated with the second data record based on a lookup operation using the dataset with the data; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to the value” as (paragraph 0037).
As to Claim 35, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises: determining that the data-determinant query term of the query does not correspond to a field identifier of the second data record; identifying a dataset associated with the second data record based on the data-determinant query term of the query; determining a content value associated with the second data record based on a lookup operation using the dataset the dataset; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to the content value, wherein the plurality of data records comprises a third data record that corresponds to the second data record, wherein the third data record comprises a data structure identifier, a property identifier, and a property, wherein the data structure identifier and the property identifier correspond to the data determinant query term of the query, and wherein the property value corresponds to the content value” as (paragraphs 0050-0052).
As to Claim 36, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises: determining that the data-determinant query term of the query does not correspond to a field identifier of the second data record; identifying a dataset associated with the second data record based on the data-determinant query term of the query: determining a content value associated with the second data record based on a lookup operation using the dataset; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to the content value, wherein the plurality of data records comprises a third data record that corresponds to the second data record, wherein the third data record comprises a field identifier and a field value, wherein the field identifier correspond to the data determinant query term of the query, and wherein the field value corresponds to the content value” as (paragraph 0020).
As to Claim 37, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises: determining that the data-determinant query term of the query does not correspond to a field identifier of the second data record; identifying a regular expression rule associated with the second data record based on the data-determinant query term of the query; determining a first field value of the second field of the second data record based on the regular expression rule; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field value, wherein the plurality of data records comprises a third data record that corresponds to the second data record, wherein the third data record comprises a field identifier and a second field value, wherein the field identifier correspond to the data determinant query term of the query, and wherein the second field value corresponds to the first field value” as (paragraph 0025).
As to Claim 38, Laurent teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the second field of the second data record comprises: determining that the data-determinant query term of the query does not correspond to a first field identifier of the second data record; identifying a regular expression rule associated with the second data record based on the data-determinant query term of the query; determining a first field value of the second field of the second data record based on the regular expression rule; generating a second field identifier, the second field identifier corresponding to the second field; adding the first field value to the second data record in association with the second field identifier; and applying a search command of the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field value” as (paragraphs 0025, 0033).
As to claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 21. In addition, Laurent teaches a system uses contextual data to retrieve data in a particular format and convert the data to a different format, even when an explicit indication of the data's original format may not be available (paragraph 0019). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 21.
As to claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 21. In addition, Laurent teaches 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 (paragraph 0056). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 21.
6. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0171751 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further
in view of Rubio et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0062241 A1) and Huselton et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0241819 A1, hereinafter “Huselton”).
As to Claim 26, Laurent does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record comprises determining the first manner of applying the data-determinant query term of the query based on metadata associated with the first data record, the metadata indicating one or more of a host, a source, source-type, or an index of data obtained from a data source that corresponds to the first data record”.
Huselton teaches a metadata record is generated in a metadata collection. The metadata record generally includes an object identifier unique to the content and a storage identifier corresponding to a location where the content is stored (paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Laurent and Rubio before him/her, to modify Laurent generating a set of search results associated with query based on applying the data-determinant query term of the query to the first field of the first data record and the second field of the second data record because that would provide links to other data structures or tables that expand upon or augment this information or the use of this information
as taught by Rubio (paragraph 0088). Or query term of the query based on metadata associated with the first data record provide metadata collection may be analyzed using various criteria to identify content to be migrated between different storage systems as taught by Huselton (abstract, paragraphs 0013-0014).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hwa whose telephone number is 571-270-1285 or email address james.hwa@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am – 5:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on 571-272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, for more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
03/02/2026
/SHYUE JIUNN HWA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156