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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to an Allowability Notice office action mailed 09/18/2025. No Claims were amended, cancelled, or added in in an RCE request filed on 12/18/2025. Therefore claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 9-14, filed 02/28/2025, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16 and 19-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1/8/16: “the detected changes” should read “the data changes”.
Claim 1/8/16:” the database level” should read “a database level”.
Claim 1/8/16: “the harmonized data” should read “the standardized data”.
Claim 2: “the transformation and harmonization of the captured data” should read “the transformation of the captured data”
Claim 3/5/13/16: “the data layer” should read “a data layer”.
Claim 6/14/19: “the transformed and harmonized data” should read “the transformed data”.
Claim 7/20: “to enhance the change data capture process” should read “to enhance the change data capture mechanism”.
Claim 10: “wherein the Headless engines are connected to the data layer” should read “wherein Headless engines are connected to a data layer…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data governance module” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claims 2, 4 and 17 are redundant and do not further limit what has already been claimed in the independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418).
As per claim 1/8/16, Makhija discloses A computerized method for change data capture in an ERP agnostic real-time data mesh, comprising:
(a) monitoring, by a data lake, a plurality of transactional systems, including at least one Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, for real-time data changes (paragraph 42-43),
(c) transforming, by the data lake, the captured data into a standardized format, wherein the transformation comprises applying schema adaptation techniques, data normalization, and enrichment processes to maintain consistency across disparate data sources (paragraph 38, 42, 46, 66, 93);
(f) disseminating insights from the Global Data Lake to one or more computing devices, wherein the dissemination comprises exposing harmonized data through API-driven interfaces to enable real-time data synchronization for transactional systems (paragraph 52, 61).
However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses (d) allocating, by the Real time data mesh, data resources within a distributed storage framework, including dynamically provisioning a plurality of Purposive Datastores (PDSes) within a Global Data Lake, wherein each PDS is configured for optimized retrieval based on at least one of data classification, access frequency, or computational workload (paragraph 37, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66) ;
(e) integrating, by the RTDM, the harmonized data into a federated data processing layer, wherein the federated layer enables parallel query execution across the plurality of PDSes to facilitate real-time analytics and decision-making (paragraph 32, 49, 82, 87, 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hadar in the teaching of Makhija, in order to create a supply chain of data and analytics within an enterprise(please see Hadar paragraph 9).
However, Makhija does not disclose but Vasudevan discloses wherein the monitoring comprises capturing updates, modifications, or new transactions using at least one of log-based change tracking, trigger-based event detection, or periodic polling;
(b) capturing and processing the detected changes using a Change Data Capture (CDC) mechanism of the RTDM, wherein the CDC mechanism comprises:
(i) a log-based change tracking process that captures transactional updates from system-generated logs, enabling continuous synchronization without modifying primary data structures (paragraph 6, 26, 28 and 35);
(ii) a trigger-based event detection system that intercepts real-time data modifications at the database level for immediate change recording; and
(iii) a polling-based retrieval mechanism that periodically queries data sources to detect and process updates in environments where event-driven approaches are not feasible;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations as taught by Vasudevan in the teaching of Makhija, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Makhija discloses wherein the transofmraiton and harmonization of the captured data involve data cleansing, normalization, and enrichment techniques to ensure data quality and consistency (paragraph 38, 42, 46 and 101).
As per claim 3, Makhija discloses wherein the data layer includes the Global Data Lake configured as a scalable and fault tolerant storage infrastructure, providing a central repository for the captured and transformed data within the real time data lake (paragraph 9-10, 35, 46-48, the data lake comprises a plurality of relational and non-relational databases which Examiner interprets as scalable and fault tolerant.). However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses a data mesh (paragraph 37, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4/17, Makhija discloses implementing change data capture using one or more trigger based, machine learning and/or polling based CDC algorithms (paragraph 12, 53 and 76).
As per claim 5/18, Makhija discloses wherein the data layer comprises the Purposive Datastores (PDSes) optimized for efficient retrieval and storage of specific types of data (paragraph 10 and 47).
As per claim 6/19, Makhija discloses storing the transformed and harmonized data in a cloud-based storage infrastructure (paragraph 77).
As per claim 7/20, Makhija discloses applying artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models to enhance the change data capture process, facilitating automated analysis, and decision making the real time data lake (paragraph 9, 47, 60, 78 and 93). However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses that a data mesh (paragraph 37, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 9, Makhija discloses a Data Governance Module for ensuring data integrity, security, and compliance within the real-time data lake (paragraph 42, 46, 54, 64, 67) However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses a real time data mesh (paragraph 7, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66)(please see claim 8 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 13, Makhija discloses wherein the data layer comprises the Purposive Datastores (PDSes) optimized for efficient retrieval and storage of specific types of data relevant to the supply chain domain (paragraph 10, 47 and 93).
As per claim 14, Makhija discloses a cloud-based storage infrastructure for storing the transformed and harmonized data (paragraph 77).
As per claim 15, Makhija discloses artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models used to enhance the change data capture process, enabling automated analysis and decision-making within the real-time data mesh (paragraph 9, 47, 60, 78 and 93).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Grunenberger (US 2015/0189014).
As per claim 10, Makhija discloses wherein the cloud engines are connected to the data layer through API Connectivity, enabling integration and communication between the components (paragraph 52, 54, 64, 90). However, Makhija does not disclose but Grunenberger discloses that the engines are headless engines (paragraph 31 and 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Grunenberger in the teaching of makhija, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Gangadarappa (US 2021/0350429), hereinafter “Gang”.
As per claim 11, Makhija does not disclose but Gang discloses wherein the System of Records integrates with external enterprise systems, including ERPs, for data exchange and synchronization (paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Gang in the teaching of Makhija, in order to obtain additional information and/or instructions (please see Gang, paragraph 37).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Ballaro (US 2023/0419387) and Hastman (US 2014/0279254)
As per claim 12, Makhija discloses a data governance module (paragraph 54). However, Makhija does not disclose but Ballaro discloses wherein the Data Governance Module includes functionalities for catalog management, order status and tracking (OST) management, special pricing management, and quote management (158-159, 160, 170, 694 and 781).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Ballaro in the teaching of Makhija, in order to provide an efficient and simple procurement process that is easily customizable for multiple organizations and multiple vendors with simple and complex business terms, and can also provide a single point-of-access for both businesses and consumers to interface, interact, and implement and execute transactions, in accordance with existing or newly defined relationships, using a custom and configurable methodology for realizing their requirements (please see Ballaro paragraph 16).
However, Makhija in view of Ballaro does not disclose but Hastman discloses Pimcore-based product data management (paragraph 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hastman in the teaching of Makhija in view of Ballaro, in order to automatically enables communications service providers to define and configure products and/or services and subsequently offer such products and/or services to customers in near real-time (please see Hastman abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628