DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trufasiu et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0058447 A1, hereinafter Trufasiu ) in view of Mensch et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0185448 A1, hereinafter Mensch ) . Trufasiu and Mensch w ere cited in the IDS filed on 06/13/2025. As per claim 1 , Trufasiu teaches the limitations substantially as claimed, including a method of moving data , the method comprising: initiating an automated process to move data between a first computer system and a second computer system (Paragraph [0060]) ; and instantiating a plurality of jobs to move data units between the first computer system and the second computer system (Paragraphs [0083], [0084], and [0086]) . Trufasiu does not expressly teach prior to execution of each job, determining if an overlap exists between data units of the jobs and executing each particular job when no overlap exists between data units moved by a currently executing job and each particular job. However, Mensch teaches prior to execution of each job, determining if an overlap exists between data units of the jobs and executing each particular job when no overlap exists between data units moved by a currently executing job and each particular job (Paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Trufasiu with those of Mensch in order to allow for Mensch’s method to more efficiently move data, by ensuring that the same data is not moved multiple times, which could increase the efficiency of the method and thus potentially increase buy-in among prospective users. As per claim 2 , Trufasiu teaches that the first computer system is an application server and the second computer system is a content management system (Figure 1, Elements 102 and 170) . As per claim 3 , Trufasiu teaches that the content management system instantiates the plurality of jobs and wherein the data units are data packages comprising a plurality of data objects, metadata describing the plurality of data objects and dependencies between the data objects, and information summarizing the data package (Paragraphs [0083], [0084], and [0086]) . As per claim 4 , Trufasiu teaches that the automated process to move data is a data import operation (Paragraph [0016]) . As per claim 5 , Mensch teaches determining if a currently executing job and a new job share a same set of objects, wherein when the currently executing job and the new job share the same set of objects, the new job is not executed (Paragraph [0020]) . As per claim 6 , Trufasiu teaches that the automated process to move data is a data export operation (Paragraph [0016]) . As per claim 7 , Mensch teaches determining if a currently executing job and a new job operate on a same data package, wherein when the currently executing job and the new job operate on a same data package, the new job is not executed (Paragraph [0020]) . As per claims 8-14 , they are computer system claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. As per claims 15-20 , they are computer-readable medium claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7762 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bradley Teets can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3338 . 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. /GREGORY A KESSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197