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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-15 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-22 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed on 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the cited references, when viewed singularly or in combination, fail to teach or suggest: "registering, via a message stream processing platform, a plurality of user defined schemas that are each specific for a specific message source and configured for validating messages, wherein each of the plurality of user-defined schemas comprises one or more message structure definitions" as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant argues that the cited references, when viewed singularly or in combination, fail to teach or suggest: "identifying, via the message stream processing platform, a first schema that is specific for a first message source of the plurality of user-defined schemas that are each specific for a specific message source, wherein the first message source is associated with the message stream processing platform" as recited in amended claim 1. (Arg./Rem, page 11]
However, in current rejection, Examiner relies on Wyatt to teach these amended limitations, therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference being used in the current rejection. See the newly crafted rejection, infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 11308074 (Wyatt et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Wyatt teaches a method comprising: registering, via a message stream processing platform, a plurality of user-defined schemas that are each specific for a specific message source and configured for validating messages, wherein each of the plurality of user-defined schemas comprises one or more message structure definitions ([C.3:L.1-17] the part provider management system can receive a new schema or schema version. Upon successfully validating the new schema or schema version, the part provider management system can store the new schema or schema version at a schema management system. The part provider management system can subsequently use the new schema or schema version to validate input documents (or, more generally, new content) using the new schema or schema version stored at the schema management system. By providing a schema management system and requiring content providers and other contributors to register schemas for their input documents, embodiments can enable content providers and other contributors to add new schemas and modify existing schemas over time, and can use the defined schemas to validate submitted content of the corresponding type);
identifying, via the message stream processing platform, a first schema that is specific for a first message source of the plurality of user-defined schemas that are each specific for a specific message source, wherein the first message source is associated with the message stream processing platform ([C.3:L.48 - C.4:L.28] FIG. 1A is a block diagram of a system that includes a part provider management system, …illustrates a plurality of content provider systems 110, a content provider API 115, a schema management system 120, … the content provider system 110 can register a new schema or schema version with the schema management system 120 …store the new schema or schema version for subsequent use. Upon receiving the submission of new content for ingestion, the content provider API 115 can perform a validation operation together with the schema management system 120 to validate the new content's schema. For example, the content provider API 115 could retrieve the corresponding pre-registered schema from the schema management system 120 [Note that the limitation does not explain how the schema is identified. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, retrieving a corresponding pre-registered schema may constitute identifying a schema] and could confirm that the new content conforms to the syntax specified in the corresponding schema. Wyatt further teaches, generally, each content provider can define their own schema(s) for use with their content, and can further define different schemas for use with different types of content. For example, a particular content producer [i.e., specific source] could define a first schema for use with source video content from the particular content producer, and could define a second schema for use with subtitle content from the particular content producer. Continuing the example, a different content producer could define a different schema for use with their source video content and a different schema for use with their subtitle content, and so on. Once the content provider API 115 confirms that the new content conforms with the corresponding schema, the content provider API 115 stores the validated new content in the content storage system 125. Therefore, from the aforementioned disclosure it would be understood by one skill in the art that Wyatt teaches a system including a plurality of content provider system 110, each acting as a source of content. Each content provider can define and register their own schema(s) for use with their content, that indication multiple schemas exist and each schema is specific to a particular source. When new content is submitted, the content provider API 115 retrieves the corresponding pre-registered schema from the schema management system 120 in order to validate the content. Retrieving the corresponding schema associated with the content provider constitute identifying a first schema that specific to a first source of the plurality of schemas, where the first source corresponds to one of the content provider system);
providing, via the message stream processing platform, the first schema to validate a first message at the first message source ([C.8:L.16-22], the content provider systems 110 can interface with the schema management system 120 to define schemas. The content provider API 115 can use such schemas to perform validation for contribution payload syntax during ingestion. [C.17:L.66 – C.18:L.3] validating the new content using the new schema or schema version stored at the schema management system), wherein validating includes checking that the first message matches the first schema ([C.4:L.10-14] the content provider API could retrieve the corresponding, pre-registered schema from the schema management system and could confirm that the new content conforms to the syntax specified in the corresponding schema. Here, Wyatt confirming that the new content conforms to the syntax specified in the corresponding schema. A schema defines the structure, format, and allowable fields of a content. Thus, confirming that the content conforms to the syntax specified in the schema necessarily involves checking that the content matches the schema definition); and
providing, via the message stream processing platform, the first message matching the first schema to a message consumer ([C.4:L.10 – C.5:L.40] Upon receiving the submission of new content for ingestion, the content provider API 115 could retrieve the corresponding, pre-registered schema from the schema management system 120 and could confirm that the new content conforms to the syntax specified in the corresponding schema. Once the content provider API 115 confirms that the new content conforms with the corresponding schema, the content provider API 115 stores the validated new content in the content storage system 125. …Upon determining that the new content has been successfully stored within the content storage system 125, the part creation API 137 can initiate an operation to create a new part object for the parts catalog 145 that represents the new content. …Once the new part object is built, the part creation API 137 publishes the new part for the new content to the parts catalog 145. …once the new part has been created and published to the parts catalog 145, the part is made available for consumption by one or more downstream systems or consumers. For example, in the event the new part corresponds to new video content, a downstream consumer such as a digital video streaming service could consume the published new part and its associated information to populate a graphical user interface for the digital streaming service site and even to retrieve video data for transmission to streaming video clients).
Regarding Claim 9, Wyatt teaches a system comprising at least one hardware-based processor and memory, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions encoded on a non-transitory processor- readable media, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one hardware-based processor, cause the system to ([Fig. 1A, C.4:L.39-45] contain a processor(s) 132 and a memory 134, which in turn contains a part provider management application 135).
The rest of the limitations of Claim 9 are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Wyatt teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more hardware processors are configurable to perform a method [C.19:L.27-32]
The rest of the limitations of Claim 17 are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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 2-3, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of US 2017/0374027 (Fischer et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, although Wyatt teaches use schemas to perform validation for contribution payload syntax [8:21-22]. However, Wyatt does not explicitly teach, however, Fischer teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more message structure definitions comprises a field identifier and a value definition for the field identifier ([¶ 0049], the contents of message payload data assure that only allowed fields are present in the message and that they conform to limits defined in the rule-set. This process includes repeating a sequence of sub-steps through the entire contents of the message data payload or until an invalid data value or field is detected. The sequence of sub-steps comprises: (1) reading M bytes that comprise a data field identifier; (2) reading the value and contents of the data field; (3) assuring that the data field is allowed by rule-set; and (4) if allowed, assure that the values of that data are within limits and ranges defined in the rule-set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fischer's validating payload based on field identifier and corresponding data-field value into the teachings of Wyatt, as doing so would enable accurate comparison of each field based on its respective field identifier.
Regarding Claim 3, Wyatt does not explicitly teach, however, Fischer teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising adding metadata to the first message, wherein the metadata is based on the field identifier ([¶ 0047], The message is qualified by reading the message header to determine and verify message characteristics such as, for example, the message type, and the expected message length, and the message version [i.e., metadata], to validate integrity of the message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fischer's verification of message based on header metadata into the system taught by Wyatt. Fischer provide a known technique for validating message using metadata already present in the header, and applying this technique in Wyatt would have predictably improved the accuracy and reliability of validation. Accordingly, the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Claims 10-11 and 18-19 are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 2-3, therefore, Claims 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3.
Claims 4, 6-8 , 12, 14-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of US 2006/0050684 (Bangham et al.)
Regarding Claim 4, Wyatt does not explicitly teach, however, Bangham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more message structure definitions defines one or more of: at least one field that is required to be present in the first message, and at least one field that is allowed to be present in the first message ([¶ 0029-0030] analyze the binary message to determine if one or more rules for the binary message are satisfied. Rule(s) may be stored in XML file(s), databases(s), or other suitable means. Rules may be associated with a particular message type and/or message fields. Rules may specify whether a field is required, allowed value(s) of a field, data type of a field, prohibited fields, or any other appropriate rule for a binary message. Some rules may vary or be applied differently depending upon the value of the field to which the rule is being applied or value of another field. For example, a rule may specify that a field is always required or that a field is only required if another field is included or another field has a specified value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bangham's rule-based specification of required and allowed fields in the teachings of Wyatt, because such incorporation would have yielded the predictable benefit of enabling the system to distinguish between mandatory field and optional field during validation.
Regarding Claim 6, Wyatt does not explicitly teach, however, Bangham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more message structure definitions defines an exact match schema that must be matched exactly, and/or at least one of the one or more message structure definitions defines an at least schema having at least one field that is required to be present in the first message. ([¶ 0007], obtaining message definition information and parsing the binary message into one or more fields using the message definition information. The analysis of the binary message may include determining, for at least one of the fields, if a value of the filed satisfies at least one of the rules associated with the field. [¶ 0051], determine if the rules associated with the message are satisfied. …determining if the message includes all of the required fields. The rules may specify some fields that are always required, while other fields may be conditionally required (e.g., if another field is present or not present, or if a value of a field is equal to a designated value)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bangham's rule-based specification of required and allowed fields in the teachings of Wyatt, because such incorporation would have yielded the predictable benefit of enabling the system to distinguish between mandatory field and optional field during validation.
Regarding Claim 7, Wyatt does not explicitly teach, however, Bangham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more message structure definitions defines at least one field that is not allowed to be present in a first message, and/or at least one of the one or more message structure definitions of at least one of the plurality of user-defined schemas defines a constraint about a value for at least one field of the first message that must be satisfied for the first message to be successfully validated ([¶ 0051] determine if the rules associated with the message are satisfied. determining …whether the value of a field is equal to an allowed value or falls within an allowed range of values. The message may also be analyzed to determine if it includes any prohibited fields or values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bangham's rule-based specification of restricted and non-allowed fields in the teachings of Wyatt, because such incorporation would have yielded the predictable benefit of enabling the system to prohibit transmitting unauthorized data.
Regarding Claim 8, Wyatt does not explicitly teach, however, Bangham teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more message structure definitions defines an at most schema that requires each field in the first message to conform to at least one of the one or more message structure definitions, but does not require all fields defined in the one or more message structure definitions to exist in the first message ([¶ 0029-0030] analyze the binary message to determine if one or more rules for the binary message are satisfied. Rule(s) may be stored in XML file(s), databases(s), or other suitable means. Rules may be associated with a particular message type and/or message fields. Rules may specify whether a field is required, allowed value(s) of a field, data type of a field, prohibited fields, or any other appropriate rule for a binary message. Some rules may vary or be applied differently depending upon the value of the field to which the rule is being applied or value of another field. For example, a rule may specify that a field is always required or that a field is only required if another field is included or another field has a specified value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bangham's rule-based field presence logic for validating messages to the teachings of Wyatt, because such incorporation would have provided a known technique for defining message structure that enabled an at most schema in which message include only those fields relevant to the selected schema, consistent with Bangham's teachings.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claims 4 and 6-8, respectively, therefore, Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 4 and 6-8.
Claim 20 is identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 6, therefore, Claim 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 21 is identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 8, therefore, Claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 22 is identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 4, therefore, Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The examiner has additionally cited the following reference on the PTO-892: US 20170295182 (Teshler et al.) as being relevant because it discuss communication schema based on source and target. Therefore, schema to validate data from a specific source is well-known in the art as evidenced by the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9206. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, ARIO ETIENNE can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A. MIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457