CTFR 18/378,500 CTFR 86585 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to amendment filed on 4/28/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 5, 7 – 9, 12, 14 – 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al (US 20140137130, hereinafter Jacob) , in view of McPhail (US 20140046952) , in view of Barton et al (US 20220038335, hereinafter Barton) , and further in view of Chen et al (US 20130283097, hereinafter Chen) . As per claim 1, Jacob discloses: A system for extraction of historical data in workflow automation platform architectures, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: generate a data extract configuration based on received extraction parameters; (Jacob [0085]: “The router 520 is configured to receive an abstraction program including a plurality of parallel algorithms for a query request from at least one computational node 110 (See FIG. 1A) or the abstraction program compiler residing in the graph analytics apparatus 130.”; [0051]: “the graph query is compiled to generate the abstraction program X* employing an abstraction program compiler 120… The abstraction program includes programming instructions for performing parallel operations on graph data to be fetched from the graph database 150 to the graph analytics appliance 130 and the volatile storage device 140.”.) initiate multiple job scheduler nodes, each configured to generate and execute a plurality of data requests based on the received extraction parameters; apply parallel processing multi-threading engine to concurrently process the plurality of data requests; (Jacob [0085]: “The worklist scheduler 530 is configured to generate a prioritized plurality of parallel threads for executing the query request from the plurality of parallel algorithms. The processing unit 510 is configured to execute multiple threads selected from the prioritized plurality of parallel threads.”; [0064]: “the abstraction program can include a plurality of parallel threads for running the requested query. Each of the plurality of parallel threads includes an instruction for operating on no more than one vertex in a graph in the graph database. The plurality of parallel threads can include first threads configured to operate on a single vertex and at least one edge in the graph (such as the ebb primitive) and and store [processed] data format extracts in a designated database. (Jacob [0055]: “once the data extraction is complete, the filtered data, which is the final result of the query request, is transferred from the graph analytics appliance 110 to the computational node as an answer to the query request.”.) Jacobs did not explicitly disclose: wherein the extraction parameters include time ranges, data types, and extraction frequencies for historical workflow data extraction; monitor, in real-time, a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests, wherein each job scheduler node transmits telemetry data encapsulating current status and progress percentage of the data requests being handled; wherein the processed data format comprises of translate proprietary format extracts into normalized data format extracts; However, McPhail teaches: wherein the processed data format comprises of translate proprietary format extracts into normalized data format extracts; (McPhail [0088]) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of McPhail into that of Jacobs in order to have the processed data format comprises of translate proprietary format extracts into normalized data format extracts. Jacob figure 2 and [0053] teaches iteratively computes a filtered subset of whole graph segments based on the algorithms encoded within the abstraction program. McPhail [0088] teaches the commonly known concept of extract data format and translate proprietary format into normalized format, while [0090] teaches using normalized format can aid in the effectiveness and efficiency of the extraction and analysis process, thus applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve the predictable results of normalization of data formats to improve the effectiveness and accuracy of the parallel extraction program, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103. Barton teaches: wherein the extraction parameters include time ranges, data types, and extraction frequencies for historical workflow data extraction; (Barton [0075] – [0081]) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Barton into that of Jacobs and McPhail in order to have the extraction parameters include time ranges, data types, and extraction frequencies for historical workflow data extraction. Barton [0075] – [0081] has shown the claimed limitations are merely some obvious type of data extraction criteria and is merely an design choice made by the applicant to use the cited extraction parameter over other types, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103. Chen teaches: monitor, in real-time, a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests, wherein each job scheduler node transmits telemetry data encapsulating current status and progress percentage of the data requests being handled; (Chen [0055]) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chen into that of Jacobs, McPhail and Barton in order to monitor, in real-time, a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests, wherein each job scheduler node transmits telemetry data encapsulating current status and progress percentage of the data requests being handled. Jacob [0085] teaches receiving a extraction job and performing the data extraction job. Chen [0055] teaches the commonly known concept of monitoring and displaying status information. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the status monitoring and feedback to the data extraction execution of Jacobs in order to achieve the predictable results of alerting user in real time in case of failure to take remedial actions, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103. As per claim 2, the combination of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen further teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to optimize data extraction via the parallel processing multi-threading engine via implementing a feedback loop from the multiple job scheduler nodes to adjust thread allocation in real-time, based on system performance metrics and extraction progress. (Jacob [0104]: “the required performance objectives may be met by suitably managing the number of concurrent threads in the system and the number of cores in the processing unit 510.”; [0094]: “The number N is selected based on the profiles of applications that will run on the processor, the properties of the storage media, and the desired performance.”) As per claim 5, the combination of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen further teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to dynamically adjust a total number of active threads or processes based on a current system load and extraction requirements according to the data extract configuration. (Jacob [0104]: “the required performance objectives may be met by suitably managing the number of concurrent threads in the system and the number of cores in the processing unit 510.”; [0094]: “The number N is selected based on the profiles of applications that will run on the processor, the properties of the storage media, and the desired performance.”) As per claim 7, the combination of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen further teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the parallel processing multi-threading engine further comprises a distributed cloud computing system enabling a concurrent execution of data extraction tasks across multiple hardware nodes. (Jacob [0038]) As per claim 8, it is the computer program product variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Jacob [0047]: CRM.) As per claim 9, it is the computer program product variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 12, it is the computer program product variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 14, it is the computer program product variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 15, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 16, the combination of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen further teach: The method of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: generating and transmitting a user interface to a user device, wherein the user interface comprises a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests in real-time. (Chen [0055]) As per claim 18, it is the method variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 20, it is the method variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6, 11, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen , and further in view of Gupta et al (US 20150279170, hereinafter Gupta) . As per claim 4, the combination of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen did not teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to trigger automated alerts in case of a data extraction job failure detected during an extraction process. However, Gupta teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to trigger automated alerts in case of a data extraction job failure detected during an extraction process. (Gupta [0027] and [0042]) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gupta into that of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen in order to trigger automated alerts in case of a data extraction job failure detected during an extraction process. Jacob [0085] teaches receiving a extraction job and performing the data extraction job. Gupta [0027] and [0042] teaches the commonly known concept of monitoring status information and display an alert to the user in case of failure. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the status monitoring and feedback to the data extraction execution of Jacobs in order to achieve the predictable results of alerting user in real time in case of failure to take remedial actions, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103. As per claim 6, the combination of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen did not teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to generate and transmit a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests in real-time. However, Gupta teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to generate and transmit a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests in real-time. (Gupta figure 3 and [0042]) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gupta into that of Jacob, McPhail, Barton and Chen in order to generate and transmit a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a status and completion percentage of each of the multiple job scheduler nodes and corresponding data requests in real-time. Jacob [0085] teaches receiving a extraction job and performing the data extraction job. Gupta [0042] teaches the commonly known concept of monitoring and displaying status information. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the status monitoring and feedback to the data extraction execution of Jacobs in order to achieve the predictable results of alerting user in real time in case of failure to take remedial actions, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103. As per claim 11, it is the computer program product variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 13, it is the computer program product variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 19, it is the method variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 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. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM. 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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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. /CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 2 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 3 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 4 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 5 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 6 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 7 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 8 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 9 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 10 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 11 Art Unit: 2196 Application/Control Number: 18/378,500 Page 12 Art Unit: 2196
Prosecution Insights