Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/583,384

SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF IMPORTING AND PROCESSING AMALGAMATED DATA INTO DATABASES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M
Art Unit
2156
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
NTT Data Services LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
257 granted / 481 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
512
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 481 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed January 21, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are currently amended. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 2, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zach Bobbitt’s “Pandas: How to Read Excel File with Merged Cells” (hereinafter ‘Bobbitt) in view of Robert O’Brien’s “Tips And Tricks: How To Fill Null Values in SQL” (hereinafter ‘O’Brien’). With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 Bobbitt teaches: receiving spreadsheet data comprising cells organized into at least a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns (Bobbitt, pages 1-2 –Excel file merged_data.xlsx that contains information about various basketball players); exporting the spreadsheet data into a data frame table representing the plurality of rows and the plurality of columns such that the data frame table includes separate unmerged cells in two or more rows of a first column of the data frame table in place of a first merged cell of the spreadsheet data (Bobbitt, pages 2-3 – reading Excel file into pandas data frame to generate table on pages 2-3), wherein the first merged cell comprises a first merged-cell value spanning the two or more rows of the plurality of rows (i.e. Mavericks in cells A2-A5 or Rockets in cells A6-A9), and wherein exporting the spreadsheet data comprises splitting the first merged cell into the separate unmerged cells (table on pages 2-3 has separate unmerged cells), the separate unmerged cells including: a first unmerged cell comprising the first merged-cell value (Bobbitt, pages 2-3 – first unmerged cell has Mavericks as value); and one or more other cells comprising a predetermined value different from the first merged-cell value (Bobbitt, pages 2-3 – other unmerged cells are filled with NaN values); and executing a statement on the data frame table to replace the predetermined value in each of the one or more other cells of the separate unmerged cells with a specific value derived from the first merged-cell value, wherein executing the statement comprises generating the statement and executing the statement when exporting the spreadsheet data into the data frame table (Bobbitt, page 3 – the fillna() statement is used to fill NaN values with appropriate team names). Although Bobbitt teaches a pandas data frame table, which is conceptually similar to a database table (i.e. both are two-dimensional, tabular data structures with rows and columns), Bobbitt does not explicitly teach a database table, a database statement, or executing via a database query or as part of a batch script. O’Brien teaches database table with null values (table on page 2), filling null values with a database statement (“filling down in SQL” on pages 3-6) , and executing the database statement via a database query or as part of a batch script (“filling down in SQL” on pages 3-6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combine Bobbitt and O’Brien to arrive at the claimed invention of importing spreadsheet data having merged cells into a database table and filling blank/null values created by unmerging cells in the database table using a database statement. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because both inventions are aimed at filling null values in a table, and pandas interacts with databases using SQL. Further, it is well known, as stated in the background of the present invention and by Bobbitt, that spreadsheet data with merged cells exported into a (SQL or data frame) table generates blank cells in the (SQL or data frame) table that need to be filled with the correct, corresponding values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to fill null or missing values (caused by unmerging imported spreadsheet data) of a SQL table using database statements. With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Bobbitt in view of O’Brien teaches wherein the database statement excludes a loop function (Bobbitt, page 3; O’Brien, pages 3-6) (Neither Bobbitt or O’Brien use a loop function). With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Bobbitt in view of O’Brien teaches wherein generating the database statement comprises: determining, from the separate unmerged cells, the first unmerged cell that comprises the predetermined value; determining, from the separate unmerged cells, the one or more other cells that comprise the first merged-cell value; and determining, from the separate unmerged cells, the specific value for each of the one or more other cells based, at least in part, on the first merged-cell value (Bobbitt, pages 2-3 – the fillna() statement is used to fill NaN values with appropriate team names; O’Brien - “filling down in SQL” on pages 3-6). With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, Bobbitt in view of O’Brien teaches wherein the specific value for each of the one or more other cells comprises the first merged-cell value (Bobbitt, pages 2-3 – “Mavericks”; O’Brien, pages 3-6 – “65”). With respect to claims 5 and 12, Bobbitt in view of O’Brien teaches wherein the predetermined value comprises at least one of a NULL value or a blank value (Bobbitt, pages 2-3 – “NaN” value; O’Brien, pages 2-3 – “null” value). With respect to claims 6, 13, and 19, Bobbitt in view of O’Brien teaches wherein the plurality of columns comprises a vertical array of data (Bobbitt, pages 1-2 –Excel file merged_data.xlsx table contains columns: Teams, Player, Points, and Assists; O’Brien, page 2 - table has columns: date, day_of_week, and inventory). With respect to claims 7, 14, and 20, Bobbitt in view of O’Brien teaches, wherein the database statement comprises a structured query language (SQL) database query (O’Brien, pages 3-6 “Filling down in SQL”). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the 35 USC 101 Rejection has been withdrawn and the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F. 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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. /ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572525
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCED CLOUD-BASED RULES CONFLICT CHECKING WITH DATA VALIDATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566752
MATCHING AND MERGING USING METADATA CONFIGURATION BASED ON AN N-LAYER MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12530340
Query Processor
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12511181
RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM, CONFIGURATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND RECOMMENDATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12505082
METHOD OF PROCESSING DATA IN A DATABASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+25.8%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 481 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month