DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted February 25, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-14 and 16-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a 35 USC 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.
Applicant's arguments towards a 35 USC 112(a) rejection of Claims 8 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 8 and 21 are currently amended to recite that a “MAL code,” is “Micro-Assembly Language code.”
However, the instant specification does not support such a statement. Nowhere in the specification is there a definition of the MAL code being a “Micro-Assembly Language code.”
Furthermore, the Applicant in their Remarks (page 2) state that a Person of ordinary skill in the field would understand from the context of the specification that the MAL acronym refers to “Micro-Assembly Language code.” However, it is incorrect that a particular, not well known acronym, out of numerous acronyms of MAL, would be that particular acronym.
Moreover, even if the claims MAL code would be known as the “Micro-Assembly Language code,” the prosecution history contains numerous attempts at defining the MAL code. First, by amending MAL code to “an assembly language code (Claims dated May 13, 2025) and then amending MAL code to “a malfunction MAL code” (Claims dated August 6, 2025).
As such, none of the above amendments support that the MAL code is the “Micro-Assembly Language code” and the 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Claim Comments
Claim 23 is currently amended and is now identical to claim 18 and they both depend upon Claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 21 are currently amended to recite “wherein the new parameter comprises a Micro-Assembly Language (MAL) code.”
However, there is nothing in the instant specification that defines a MAL code as “Micro-Assembly Language” code.
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 3, 5-6, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 19-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0207036) in view of Bellingan et al (US Patent 9,659,040) further in view of Mudumba et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0012827) further in view of Nanda et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0243836) and further in view of Bergman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0260447).
Claims 3, 14 and 20: Ou discloses a system, a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium of executing supporting operations in a data management system comprising:
assigning support pipelines to a plurality of repetitive data treatment tasks, each support pipeline being configured for a corresponding one of the of repetitive data treatment tasks [0041]. [See at least identifying high frequency data access (i.e. repetitive data treatment task).]
Ou alone does not explicitly disclose that there are a plurality of pipelines.
However, Nanda [0105, 0114] discloses deploying pipelines to processes various tasks.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Nanda. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use pipelines to at least “track the processing needs.”
Ou as modified further discloses:
automatically generate a database query for each support pipeline, each database query applying a corresponding operation to data in a database used by the data management system [0041]. [See at least generating a query based on identifying the repetitive task.]
initiating each support pipeline to be triggered by database operations [0041]. [See at least generating the query when “the query request satisfies the preset high-frequency access condition.”]
Ou alone also does not explicitly disclose wherein, at least one support pipeline is initiated to apply a corresponding operation in association with a data reconciliation process, the data reconciliation process comprising: comparing an input dataset to a baseline data set to determine discrepancies between the input and baseline datasets, by, for each of a plurality of database pools, processing data assigned to that pool by concurrently checking for the discrepancies and executing statements without waiting for all pools to have finished processing.
However, Bellingan (Col 11 ln 3-13) discloses comparing data to baseline data; Bellingan (Col 11 ln 1-2) also states that various processes may be performed in parallel; And Nanda [0110, 0115] also discloses that processes in the pipelines may be performed in parallel. Mudumba [0010] further discloses that certain database related processes do not need to finish and may be completed without waiting for another process to finish.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Bellingan, Nanda and Mudumba. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify discrepancies in data.
Ou alone also does not explicitly disclose creating a delta table for each pool to identify extracted data associated with the discrepancies; and upon completion of the processing, combining the delta tables.
However, Bergman [0050-0051, 0067] discloses generating anomaly tables (i.e. discrepancies) and then grouping all anomalous results together.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Bellingan and Bergman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify discrepancies in data.
Claims 5 and 16: Ou discloses the system and the method of Claims 3 and 14 above, but -Ou alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the baseline dataset comprises data from an enterprise data catalogue and the input dataset comprises data from the data management system that has been copied for processing independent of operations of an enterprise system.
However, Bellingan (Col 5 ln 56-63, Col 11 ln 3-13) discloses comparing baseline data to other data from databases. And see Bellingan (Col 6 ln 29-36) for creating an intermediate representation (i.e. data that’s been copied independent of operations of an enterprise system.)
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Bellingan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify discrepancies in data without changing the underlying data.
Claims 6 and 17: Ou discloses the system and the method of Claims 3 and 14 above, but -Ou alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the baseline dataset comprises data from an access management input and the input dataset comprises data from the data management system that has been copied for processing independent of operations of an enterprise system. Furthermore, the type of system, i.e. enterprise data catalogue, is a type of database system that does not provide for specific functionality beyond what is taught in Bellingan.
However, Bellingan (Col 5 ln 56-63, Col 11 ln 3-13) discloses comparing baseline data to other data from databases. And see Bellingan (Col 6 ln 29-36) for creating an intermediate representation (i.e. data that’s been copied independent of operations of an enterprise system.) Furthermore, the type of system, i.e. access management input, is a type of database system that does not provide for specific functionality beyond what is taught in Bellingan.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Bellingan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify discrepancies in data without changing the underlying data.
Claims 10 and 19: Ou discloses the system and the method of Claims 3 and 14 above, but Ou does not explicitly disclose wherein the database query comprises one or more of: a status reset for a table or view associated with the database; an active/inactive setting to activate or deactivate a setting from a reconciliation process; a data catalog look up to pull data from an enterprise data catalogue; a troubleshooting assistance operation; or a user add/remove operation.
However, -Ou [0041] discloses issuing queries to at least “look up to pull data from” a database. But while Ou describes looking up data to pull it up, it does not pull up data from a catalog. On the other hand, a catalog is a type of a database, which has the same functionality as a database in Ou [0041].
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou to comprise wherein the database query comprises a data catalog look up to pull data from an enterprise data catalogue. One would have been motivated to do so in order to retrieve data from a database based on a generated query.
Claims 11 and 24: Ou discloses the system and method of Claims 3 and 14, and Ou further discloses further comprising providing a workspace for artificial intelligence, machine learning, or advanced analytics [0029].
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0207036) in view of Bellingan et al (US Patent 9,659,040) further in view of Mudumba et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0012827) further in view of Nanda et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0243836) further in view of Bergman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0260447) and further in view of Micro-Assembly Language (MAL) Specification (Published 1999), hereinafter MAL.
Claims 8 and 21: Ou discloses the system and method of Claims 3 and 14, but -Ou alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the new parameter comprises a Micro-Assembly Language (MAL) code.
However, MAL discloses using the MAL language.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with MAL. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use a particular language for coding for at least microprogramming purposes.
Claims 2, 7, 13, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0207036) in view of Bellingan et al (US Patent 9,659,040) further in view of Mudumba et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0012827) further in view of Nanda et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0243836) further in view of Bergman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0260447) and further in view of Teyer et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0152521).
Claims 2 and 13: Ou discloses the system and the method of Claims 3 and 14 above, but Ou alone does not explicitly disclose detect that a new parameter is loaded into the data management system coupled to the database; and run each support pipeline to apply the respective operation on an object associated with the new parameter.
However, Teyer [0015, 0061] discloses identifying trigger objects in order to perform a particular operation and perform an action based on the trigger object.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Teyer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify when a new object is added to a system and to further determine what action is required based on the new object.
Claims 7, 18 and 23: Ou discloses the system and the method of Claims 3 and 14 above, but Ou alone does not explicitly disclose that the database query is a SQL query.
However, Teyer [0093] discloses using a SQL query to access data.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Teyer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to access data.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0207036) in view of Bellingan et al (US Patent 9,659,040) further in view of Mudumba et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0012827) further in view of Nanda et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0243836) further in view of Bergman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0260447) and further in view of Fan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0303585).
Claims 9 and 22: Ou discloses the system and the method of Claims 3 and 14, but Ou alone does not explicitly disclose wherein each support pipeline is run on a zone, schema, or table basis.
However, Fan [0012, 0040] discloses using schemas for configuring how to run pipelines.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ou with Fan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have a flexible pipeline structure to handle various scenarios.
Conclusion
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163