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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-19, 21-26 are pending.
Claims 6 and 20 are canceled.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 23, 24, and 26 are objected.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection: The claimed invention has been amended to recite “validating, by the at least one processor, a particular output digital file generated via the converting” which integrates the judicial exception into the technological improvement recites in the specification (Para 0044, the conversion validator 118 can also use control files, metadata, and/or other types of information associated with source files 104 to validate corresponding converted output files 106). Accordingly, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-19, 21-26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Gauthier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 23, 24, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7 (and similar claims 13, 18, 23):
The prior arts of the record lack disclosure or inference of the step “the particular source digital file comprises a mainframe file, the mainframe file is associated with a control file, separate from the mainframe file, and the at least one processor determines the number, indicating how many records or values are included in the particular source digital file, based on the control file”. The closest prior art of the record, Rosseel, teaches source digital files but does not teach a mainframe file associated with a control file.
Regarding claim 9:
The prior arts of the record lack disclosure or inference of the steps “wherein the notification includes at least one of: an indication that the conversion operations are complete, at least a portion of an error log identifying errors that occurred during conversion of the plurality of source digital files into the corresponding output digital files, or a preview of records in the corresponding output digital files”
The closest prior art of the record, Rosseel, teaches an indication that the conversion operations. However, Rosseel does not teach an error log or a preview of records.
Regarding claim 10 (and similar claim 15):
The prior arts of the record lack disclosure or inference of the steps “wherein the at least one processor omits the preview of the records from the notification based on the configuration data indicating that the plurality of source digital files contains sensitive data”. The closest prior art of the record, Rosseel, teaches a notification but doesn’t teach omitting a notification preview based on the presence of sensitive data.
Regarding claim 24:
The prior arts of the record lack disclosure or inference “notification means for sending a notification to at least one destination, the notification including at least one of: an indication that conversions of the plurality of source digital files into the corresponding output digital files are complete, at least a portion of an error log identifying errors that occurred during conversion of the plurality of source digital files into the corresponding output digital files, or a preview of records in the corresponding output digital files”. The closest prior art of the record, Rosseel, teaches a notification but doesn’t teach an error log identifying errors or a preview of records in the corresponding output digital files.
Regarding claim 26:
The prior arts of the record lack disclosure or inference of the steps “analyzing, via at least one analytics tool executed by the at least one processor, the corresponding output digital files in the destination directory, wherein the at least one analytics tool is configured to analyze a set of digital files formatted according to the particular target file format”. The closest prior art of the record, Rosseel, teaches output files in a destination directory but doesn’t teach an analytics tool configured to analyze a set of digital files.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosseel et al (US 20160224571 A1) hereafter Rosseel in view of Wong et al (US 20040015890 A1) hereafter Wong in view of Gauthier et al (US 20220014502 A1) hereafter Gauthier
Regarding claim 1, Rosseel teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by at least one processor, configuration data defining parameters of a file conversion job to convert a plurality of source digital files into a plurality of output digital files, the parameters indicating:
a source directory that stores the plurality of source digital files (Para 0012, plural input modules, wherein each input module is adapted to handle incoming files), a destination directory in which the plurality of output digital files, corresponding to the plurality of source digital files, is to be stored, and a particular target file format for the plurality of output digital files (Para 0012, transformation module is adapted to transform incoming files in a respective source format into outgoing files in a respective destination format); accessing, by the at least one processor, and during the file conversion job, the plurality of source digital files stored in the source directory defined by the configuration data, wherein: different source digital files, in the plurality of source digital files, are formatted according to different source file formats (Para 0012, the system supporting plural source formats and plural destination formats for the files); determining, by the at least one processor, and during the file conversion job, source file formats of individual source digital files, of the plurality of source digital files, stored in the source directory (Para 0012, transform incoming files in a respective source format into outgoing files in a respective destination format); converting, by the at least one processor, during the file conversion job, and by executing the different file converters that are respectively associated with the source file formats of the individual source digital files, the individual source digital files into corresponding output digital files that are all formatted according to the particular target file format (Para 0012, transform incoming files in a respective source format into outgoing files in a respective destination format); and storing, by the at least one processor, during the file conversion job, the corresponding output digital files in the destination directory defined by the configuration data (Para 0029, a file can be transformed into plural, different destination formats that are stored on different locations).
Rosseel does not appear to explicitly teach identifying, by the at least one processor, during the file conversion job, and from among a plurality of file converters, different file converters that: are executable by the at least one processor, are respectively associated with the different source file formats, and are respectively configured to convert digital files formatted according to the different source file formats into the particular target file format defined by the configuration data.
In analogous art, Wong teaches identifying, by the at least one processor, during the file conversion job, and from among a plurality of file converters, different file converters that: are executable by the at least one processor, are respectively associated with the different source file formats, and are respectively configured to convert digital files formatted according to the different source file formats into the particular target file format defined by the configuration data (Para 0004, A software package, comprising a receiving module determining a format of each of a plurality of original files and a converter module applying a converter function corresponding to the file format of each of the original files to create new files in a converted file format). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosseel to include the teaching of Wong. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to process information in a variety of format, as taught by Rosseel (Para 0024, it may also be possible that application program 130 may require different configuration information based on different modes of operation of application program).
Rosseel in view of Wong does not appear to explicitly teach validating, by the at least one processor, a particular output digital file generated via the converting, by: determining a number indicating how many records or values are included in a particular source digital file, of the plurality of source digital files, that corresponds to the particular output digital file: and determining that the particular output digital file also includes the number of records or values.
In analogous art, Gauthier teaches validating, by the at least one processor, a particular output digital file generated via the converting, by: determining a number indicating how many records or values are included in a particular source digital file, of the plurality of source digital files, that corresponds to the particular output digital file: and determining that the particular output digital file also includes the number of records or values (Para 0050, the balance of input tokens matches the value of output tokens, and that the spending user has the private key q.sub.o corresponding to the serial number S.sub.o, the blockchain network 110 accepts the transaction and records the spending of the zk-tokens in the ledge). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosseel in view of Wong to include the teaching of Gauthier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform process verification, as taught by Gauthier (Para 0050, the blockchain network 110 accepts the transaction and records the spending of the zk-tokens in the ledger 115).
Regarding claim 2, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein converting the particular source digital file into the particular output digital file comprises: determining, by the at least one processor, that a size of the particular source digital file exceeds a file size threshold; dividing, by the at least one processor, the particular source digital file into component digital files that have sizes less than or equal to the file size threshold; converting, by the at least one processor, and using a file converter associated with a source file format of the particular source digital file, the component digital files into converted component digital files formatted according to the particular target file format; and assembling, by the at least one processor, the converted component digital files into the particular output digital file (Rosseel, Para 0021, An input module may for instance specify that all MS Word documents located in a specific map on a network drive, and whose file size is below 5 Megabytes, must be transformed into pdf format).
Regarding claim 3, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor converts different component digital files substantially simultaneously via parallel processing (Rosseel, Para 0065, More complex workflows contain a chain of plural transformation modules and plural release modules enabling to transform incoming files having a specific source format to outgoing files having multiple, different destination formats that can be stored on multiple, different locations).
Regarding claim 4, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor converts the different source digital files substantially simultaneously via parallel processing (Rosseel, Para 0065, More complex workflows contain a chain of plural transformation modules and plural release modules enabling to transform incoming files having a specific source format to outgoing files having multiple, different destination formats that can be stored on multiple, different locations).
Regarding claim 5, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor comprises different processors of different computing devices, and the different processors of the different computing devices convert the different source digital files substantially simultaneously (Rosseel, Para 0065, More complex workflows contain a chain of plural transformation modules and plural release modules enabling to transform incoming files having a specific source format to outgoing files having multiple, different destination formats that can be stored on multiple, different locations).
Regarding claim 8, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the at least one processor, that all of the plurality of source digital files stored in the source directory have been converted into the corresponding output digital files stored in the destination directory; and sending, by the at least one processor, a notification to at least one destination, the notification indicating that conversion operations associated with the source directory are complete (Rosseel, Para 0072, As a result, the file transformation task will be executed and the path to the location of the transformed file will be released).
Claim 11 is the computing devices claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the one or more computing devices of claim 11, wherein the configuration data defines a file size threshold, and the operations further comprise: identifying one or more large source digital files in the source directory that have first sizes that exceed the file size threshold; converting the one or more large source digital files by individually dividing the one or more large source digital files into component digital files that have second sizes less than or equal to the file size threshold; converting, using one or more file converters, of the plurality of file converters, that are associated with the source file formats of the one or more large source digital files, the component digital files into converted component digital files formatted according to the particular target file format; and assembling the converted component digital files into one or more large output digital files that correspond to the one or more large source digital files (Rosseel, Para 0021, An input module may for instance specify that all MS Word documents located in a specific map on a network drive, and whose file size is below 5 Megabytes, must be transformed into pdf format).
Regarding claim 14, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the one or more computing devices of claim 11, wherein: the configuration data indicates a destination for a notification, and the operations further comprise sending the notification to the destination upon completion of conversion of the plurality of source digital files into the corresponding output digital files(Para 0012, transformation module is adapted to transform incoming files in a respective source format into outgoing files in a respective destination format).
Claim 16 is the media claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the media claim corresponding to the method claim 12, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the media claim corresponding to the method claim 14, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 21 is the computing system claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 22 is the system claim corresponding to the media claim 17, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 25, Rosseel in view of Wong in view of Gauthier further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the validating comprises determining that the particular output digital file includes the number of records or values following assembly of the converted component digital files into the particular output digital file (Gauthier, Para 0050, the balance of input tokens matches the value of output tokens, and that the spending user has the private key q.sub.o corresponding to the serial number S.sub.o, the blockchain network 110 accepts the transaction and records the spending of the zk-tokens in the ledge). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosseel in view of Wong to include the teaching of Gauthier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform process verification, as taught by Gauthier (Para 0050, the blockchain network 110 accepts the transaction and records the spending of the zk-tokens in the ledger 115).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights