DETAILED ACTION
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
The Office has withdrawn the previous rejections under the claims under 35 USC §§101 and 103, in light of Applicants’ amendment filed 12/4/2025. However, new rejections have been set forth concerning 35 USC §101 in order to accommodate the amended claim language. Additionally, an objection to the amended claims has been set forth below in order to point out a minor informality.
Applicant's amendments/arguments, filed 12/4/2025, concerning the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, Applicants on pages 6-7 assert the amended claim language and argue that the newly amended claims are not abstract because: 1) the transformed data uses a substitution or a changing; and, 2) the amendment enriches/changes the transformed/changed data and it therefore integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that transforming/substituting/changing data is an example of a mental process. Consider the transforming/translating of text in one language to another, for example. This is an example of a process that can be performed in the mind, or via the use of pencil and paper. Second, it is noted that if changing data once is abstract concept, then it follows that performing such “changing” action(s) again remains abstract.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101 is believed to be reasonable.
Note: One way to think about “integration into a practical application”, is to address how such data is used in a follow-on application. For example, claiming a novel method of gathering/processing data useful in the determination of the doppler effect would be abstract, but incorporating such a method into a radar tracking system would be an integration into a practical application.
Claim Objections
Independent claims 1, 24 and 33 are objected to due to the following exemplary informalities: Each of these amended claims are terminated with two periods (“..”). Applicant is respectfully reminded to review the specification/abstract/ claims/drawings for all informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33 and 35-37 are allowable over the prior art. However, these claims remain rejected under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-5, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
These claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites at a very level, producing a common data format from data received from a variety of sources. Thus, the claims encompass the performance of the limitations in the mind, or alternatively the solving of a math problem (i.e., a series of mathematical steps) that are not tied to a practical application.
Regarding the independent claims:
Step 1: Yes, claim 1 recites a storage medium for a series of steps executed (therefore a process embodied in a product/machine), claim 24 is directed to a method (therefore a process), and claim 33 is directed to a system (therefore a product/machine). Thus, each of these claims is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Judicial Exception Recited?): Yes. Claims 1, 24 and 33 recite limitations directed to an abstract idea: “transform the plurality of data sources into a universal data format; and enrich the transformed data by applying one or more rules against the transformed data, wherein enriching the transformed data comprises computing a confidence value for the substitution, resulting in at least one of: a first value substituted for a missing value; or the first value substituted for a second value, wherein the first value and the second value are obtained from different ones of the plurality of data sources, wherein a first value substitution is based at least in part on one of geographic proximity, gender proximity, network connectivity proximity, degrees of human relatedness, degrees of record relatedness, or temporal proximity”. As drafted, each of these limitations recites a mentally performable process as one can reformat data, provide missing/substitute data, and weight or score data via a mental process or using paper and pencil.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrated into a Practical Application?): No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, "non-transitory machine readable medium … to cause one or more processors”, and claim 33 recites “a memory and a processing device”. Each of these are merely high-level recitations of generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Additionally, claims 1, 24 and 33 each recites receive/receiving/receive “data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the plurality of data sources have different data formats” is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Therefore, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept Provided?): No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the elements (i.e., steps of receiving, enriching/ scoring) in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components (e.g., storage) cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
With respect to the receive/receiving/receive limitations discussed above, and when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, each of the claims, taken as a whole, does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 3-5, 21-23 and 35-37 depend upon claim 1, and do not correct the issues set forth above. These claims essentially further classify/categorize the data items, or further recite rule types or substitution types. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected.
Claims 26-28 and 30-32 depend upon claim 24, and do not correct the issues set forth above. These claims essentially further classify/categorize the data items, or further recite rule types or substitution types. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevance is provided in at least the Abstract of each cited document.
US Patents
Ahuja 11,704,345
A system and method are provided for inferring location attributes from data entries. The method comprises for data entries in a structured data set format, a computer system selecting a sample of rows. The computer system then identifies columns containing geospatial and temporal information based on the column headings. The computer system next identifies location information within the structured data set. The computer system determines implied location information based on the identified location information. The computer system derives location values based on the identified and implied location information using consolidation rules, resulting in a final set of location attributes for the data entries. The computer system then associates the final set of location attributes with the data entries. (Abstract).
Oberbreckling 10,650,000
Techniques for analyzing data from multiple different data sources to determine a relationship between the data (also referred to herein a “data relationship discovery”). The relationships between any two compared datasets may be used to determine one or more recommendations for merging (e.g., joining), or “blending,” the data sets together. Relationship discovery may include determining a relationship between a subset of data, such as a relationship between a pair of columns, or column pair, each column in a different dataset of the datasets that are compared. Given two datasets to process for relationship discovery, relationship discovery may identify and recommends a ranked subset of column pairs between two compared datasets. The ranked column pairs identified as a relationship may be useful for blending the datasets with respect to those column pairs. (Abstract). In certain embodiments, the enrichment process 110 can analyze the data using a semantic bus (also referred to herein as a pipeline or semantic pipeline) and one or more natural language (NL) processors that plug into the bus. The NL processors can automatically identify data source columns, determine the type of data in a particular column, name the column if no schema exists on input, and/or provide metadata describing the columns and/or data source. In some embodiments, the NL processors can identify and extract entities (e.g., people, places, things, etc.) from column text. NL processors can also identify and/or establish relationships within data sources and between data sources. As described further below, based on the extracted entities, the data can be repaired (e.g., to correct typographical or formatting errors) and/or enriched (e.g., to include additional related information to the extracted entities). In some embodiments, a publish stage 112 can provide data source metadata captured during enrichment and any data source enrichments or repairs to one or more visualization systems for analysis (e.g., display recommended data transformations, enrichments, and/or other modifications to a user). The publishing sub-system can deliver the processed data to one or more data targets. A data target may correspond to a place where the processed data can be sent. The place may be, for example, a location in memory, a computing system, a database, or a system that provides a service. For example, a data target may include Oracle Storage Cloud Service (OSCS), URLs, third party storage services, web services, and other cloud services such as Oracle Business Intelligence (BI), Database as a Service, and Database Schema as a Service. In some embodiments, a syndication engine provides customers with a set of APIs to browse, select, and subscribe to results. Once subscribed and when new results are produced, the results data can be provided as a direct feed either to external web service endpoints or as bulk file downloads. (col. 7 lines 9-44).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner ROBERT STEVENS whose telephone number is (571) 272-4102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:00 - 2:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571) 270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
February 14, 2026