DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on February 20, 2026. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 6 and 16 were previously cancelled
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are amended
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on February 20, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Priority
Applicant repeats the same argument that was filed on May 19, 2025. Because the examiner already responded to the argument in the office action dated June 18, 2025 and Applicant presented no new argument or factual evidence to support their claim of priority to Provisional Application No. 63353006, the examiner maintains the same position that is duplicated below in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments do not overcome all the indefiniteness issues set forth in the previous office action. The 35 USC § 112(b) claim rejections have been updated to reflect the issues that still remain. Please see below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
In response to Applicant’s 1st argument on page 3 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment as quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“At the outset, the Office Action asserts that "The RDBMS architecture recited in the above limitation is not integrated in any way with the remainder of the claimed invention, because the steps recited in the claimed invention appear to take place in the tenant-facing L3 container regardless of the inner architecture of the RDBMS." Office Action, p. 4. However, the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS architecture recited in claim 1 is integrated in the other limitations of the claim. For example, the L3 container inherits from the L2 container. This inheritance structure is integral to the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS architecture and allows the L3 container to use data items and match rules defined in a metadata configuration of a tenant that inherits from the L2 container.”
Applicant claims that the inheritance structure of the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS architecture “allows the L3 container to use data items and match rules defined in a metadata configuration of a tenant that inherits from the L2 container”. The examiner notes the claim language neither recites how data items and match rules defined in a metadata configuration of a tenant are inherited by the L3 container from the L2 container and how they relate to the L1 container of the architecture nor how the EID manipulations fit into the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS architecture. Because all the steps recited in the remainder of the claim take place in the outer most tenant-facing layer regardless of the inner RDBMS architecture, the RDBMS architecture is not integrated in any way with the claimed invention.
In response to Applicant’s 2nd argument on page 4 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment as quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“Such limitations are not abstract because they are not mental processes, nor are they mathematical concepts, nor are they certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, such limitations would integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because they are not merely generic computing components, nor are they mere instructions to apply an exception, nor are they insignificant extra solution activity, nor are they merely limiting to a technology or field of use. See, e.g., MPEP 216.05. Moreover, the limitations above provide a technological improvement that does not exist outside of computing by providing a multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS having an n-layer architecture that provides data lineage and survivorship functionality that otherwise could not be performed.
The limitations above also provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Neither the technical problem nor the technical solution exist outside the realm of computing. More specifically, the technical problem is how to track and manage data lineage and survivorship (e.g., in a multi-tenant system). The technical solution provides a specific computing structure (e.g., the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS having an n-layer architecture) for merging data items, promoting EIDs, retaining legacy EIDs, and triggering dynamic survivorship rules. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is patent eligible.”
The above argument concerns the limitations “in the L3 container”, “in a legacy EID datastore of the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS”, and “configured in metadata and evaluated at run time to determine operational values”. These limitations do not address the fundamental question of how the “merging data items, promoting EIDs, retaining legacy EIDs, and triggering dynamic survivorship rules” fit into the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS as discussed with respect to the previous argument above. They merely generally link the abstract idea to a technological area – database management, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Even though the above limitation appears to recite a RDBMS architecture, because all the steps recited in the remainder of the claim take place in the outer most tenant-facing layer regardless of the inner RDBMS architecture, the RDBMS architecture is not integrated in any way with the claimed invention. As such, the RDBMS architecture and the container and datastore recited in the claim merely generally link the abstract idea to the database management technological field without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Please refer to the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below for details.
Examiner’s Note
The limitation recited in independent claims 1 and 11 respectively that reads “… in a multitenant EID lineage-persistent relational database management system (RDBMS), wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS has a n-layer architecture, wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS includes an industry-agnostic layer in a Layer 1 (L1) of the n-layer architecture, wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS includes an industry-focused layer in a Layer 2 (L2) container of the n-layer architecture, wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS includes a tenant layer in a Layer (L3) container of the n-layer architecture, wherein the L3 container inherits all data items from the L2 container, and wherein the first data item and the second data item are tenant data items in the L3 container and cross-tenant matching uses match rules defined in a metadata configuration of a tenant that inherits from the L2 container”. The RDBMS architecture recited in the above limitation is not integrated in any way with the remainder of the claimed invention, because the steps recited in the claimed invention appear to take place in the tenant-facing L3 container regardless of the inner architecture of the RDBMS. As a result, the prior art rejections to the claims as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 03/29/2024 stand until further clarifications are filed by Applicant.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 63353006, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the prior-filed application fails to provide support for entity identifier (EID) and related features.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract is objected to for being over 150 words in length.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “changing, by a data item update engine, the first data item and the second data item, triggering survivorship rules configured in metadata and evaluated at run time to determine operational values” at the end of the claim. It is unclear what “survivorship rules” are triggered - “survivorship rules configured in metadata” for “the first data item” or “the second data item” or something else? It is also unclear what exactly this limitation changes in “the first data item” and “the second data item” and how it relates to the rest of the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “changing, by a data item update engine, the first data item and the second data item, triggering survivorship rules configured in metadata and evaluated at run time to determine operational values” at the end of the claim. It is unclear what “survivorship rules” are triggered - “survivorship rules configured in metadata” for “the first data item” or “the second data item” or something else? It is also unclear what exactly this limitation changes in “the first data item” and “the second data item” and how it relates to the rest of the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 11.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected for being directed to non-statutory subject matter as discussed above.
The inventions of claims 11-15 and 17-20 are directed to the statutory categories of a process.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claim 11, which recites similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 11 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“… assigns/assigning … a first EID to a first data item and a second EID to a second data item”. Assigning an identification to a data item may be performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“… matches/matching … the first data item with the second data item in real time”. Identifying similar data items involves observation, evaluation, and judgment that can all be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“… merges/merging … the first data item with the second data item to create a merged data item …”. Gathering information from multiple sources and combining it into one data item may be performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“… promotes/promoting … the first EID to a primary EID for the merged data item”. Reusing an existing ID as that of the merged data item may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“… retains/retaining … the second EID as a legacy EID of the merged data item distinctly in association with a portion of the merged data item obtained from the second data item …”. Saving the ID of a merged data item and the association of the ID with the data item for later retrieval is a mental process that has been practiced by the human beings for many years. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“… changes/changing … the first data item and the second data item, triggering survivorship rules …”. Making updates to existing data items and trickling down the updates according to existing rules applicable to these data items is a mental process that has been practiced by the human beings for many years. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“… in a multitenant EID lineage-persistent relational database management system (RDBMS), wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS has a n-layer architecture, wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS includes an industry-agnostic layer in a Layer 1 (L1) of the n-layer architecture, wherein the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS includes an industry-focused layer in a Layer 2 (L2) container of the n-layer architecture, wherein the multitenant EID lineage- persistent RDBMS includes a tenant layer in a Layer (L3) container of the n-layer architecture, and wherein the L3 container inherits all data items from the L2 container, and wherein the first data item and the second data item are tenant data items in the L3 container and cross-tenant matching uses match rules defined in a metadata configuration of a tenant that inherits from the L2 container”, “in the L3 container”, “in a legacy EID datastore of the multitenant EID lineage-persistent RDBMS”, and “configured in metadata and evaluated at run time to determine operational values” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – database management, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Even though the above limitation appears to recite a RDBMS architecture, because all the steps recited in the remainder of the claim take place in the outer most tenant-facing layer regardless of the inner RDBMS architecture, the RDBMS architecture is not integrated in any way with the claimed invention. As such, the RDBMS architecture and the container and datastore recited in the claim merely generally link the abstract idea to the database management technological field without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the claims do not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 each recite additional elements of “receives/receiving … new dataset …”. These functions constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g). In Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional under 2106.05(d)(ii).
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, and 17-20 each recite additional elements that may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as a mental process.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea in independent claims 1 and 11 that are still mentally performable.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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 Private 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168