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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea under the mental process without significantly more. These claims recite a method, a non-transitory machine-readable medium, and an apparatus respectively under step 1.
Re claim 1, a method comprising:
based on detection of a paging logic configured for a data source connector in a data pipeline, instantiating a pager to communicate with an application programming interface (API) endpoint specified in the data source connector;
communicating to the API endpoint a first request for data from the data source according to configuration of the connector;
for each of a plurality of API responses,
parsing the paging logic to determine a first set of pagination parameters for extraction from the API response and to determine mapping of at least a first of the first set of pagination parameters into a subsequent request message;
indicating to the pager the first set of pagination parameters to extract from the API response;
indicating to the pager the mapping of the first pagination parameter into a subsequent request message; and
the pager generating the subsequent request message with a value of the first pagination parameter extracted from the API response assigned to an element of the subsequent request message according to the mapping.
Under Prong I step 2A, the limitations in bold font are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. Given the dataset, one ordinary skill in the art can mentally perform all of the steps that identified in bold limitations with pen and paper.
Under Prong II step 2A, the additional elements in regular font merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in regular font are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and the courts have identified merely transmitting and displaying data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting and displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 2 and 9, the limitations “for each of the plurality of API responses, determining whether a stop condition is satisfied based on a value of a second pagination parameter extracted from the API response; and stopping paging based on determining that the stop condition is satisfied, wherein generating the subsequent request message is based on determining that the stop condition is not satisfied.” in claim 2 and “instructions for the API client include the instructions to generate the subsequent request message.” In claim 9 are similarly analyzed as seen above under Prong I step 2A as these limitations can be mentally done in human mind. There is no additional element that would integrate into the practical applications.
Re claims 3-7 and 12-14, all the limitations including “for each of the plurality of API responses, storing data in a payload of the API response to a destination or staging area.” in claim 3; “instantiating the pager comprises instantiating a parser.” in claim 4; “the pager invokes the parser after receipt of each API response.” in claim 5; “communicating each subsequent request message to the API endpoint.” in claim 6; and “the paging logic is in a human-readable data serialization language.” in claim 7; “the program code further comprises instructions to communicate to a manager of the data pipeline completion of data extraction.” in claim 12; “the program code further comprises instructions to instantiate a parser for the API client, wherein the parser executes the instructions to parse the paging logic and the instructions to indicate the first set of pagination parameters to extract and the mapping.” in claim 13; and “the program code further comprises instructions of the API client, the instructions of the of API client comprising instructions to communicate each subsequent request to an API endpoint indicated in configuration of the connector.” in claim 14 are consider as additional elements which analyzed under Prong II step 2A wherein these limitation do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting and displaying data/information as part of communication. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Re claims 8 and 15, these claims are similarly analyzed as seen in claim 1 above. In addition, the limitations including “a processor” and “a machine-readable medkum having instruction stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Re claim 10, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 11, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 16, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9. thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Re claim 17, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 10. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Re claim 18, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 11. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Re claim 19, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 12. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Re claim 20, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 13. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nerius et al. (U.S. 2020/0302001).
Re claim 1, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 a method (e.g. abstract and Figures 1-2 disclosing pagination framework) comprising: based on detection of a paging logic configured for a data source connector in a data pipeline (e.g. Figure 4 with the data stream object 301 and its GUI configuration in Figures 5-22 and paragraphs [0042-0044]), instantiating a pager to communicate with an application programming interface (API) endpoint specified in the data source connector (e.g. Figures 1-2 communication with external component 30 and paragraphs [0035-0037] wherein pager/data stream object handler interface with API from the external sources); communicating to the API endpoint a first request for data from the data source according to configuration of the connector (e.g. Figure 23 with responses 718 and paragraphs [0036 and 0042-0044] with API responses from the external sources); for each of a plurality of API responses, parsing the paging logic to determine a first set of pagination parameters for extraction from the API response and to determine mapping of at least a first of the first set of pagination parameters into a subsequent request message (e.g. Figure 23 with extractor get page info 730 and paragraphs [0072-0074 and 0079] wherein certain page information is parsed and extracted); indicating to the pager the first set of pagination parameters to extract from the API response (e.g. Figures 5-22 with pager setting configuration/parameters and paragraph [0067, 0071, 0074, and 0079] wherein certain pagination information is extracted from the API responses); indicating to the pager the mapping of the first pagination parameter into a subsequent request message (e.g. Figures 5-22 with pager setting configuration/parameters and paragraphs [0063, 0071, 0074 and 0079] wherein the extracted information is mapped to the next request); and the pager generating the subsequent request message with a value of the first pagination parameter extracted from the API response assigned to an element of the subsequent request message according to the mapping (e.g. Figures 1-2 and 23 with the additional request of the pagination and paragraphs [0078-0080]).
Re claim 2, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 for each of the plurality of API responses, determining whether a stop condition is satisfied based on a value of a second pagination parameter extracted from the API response (e.g. Figures 13-22 with the pagination setting and paragraphs [0078-0080]); and stopping paging based on determining that the stop condition is satisfied, wherein generating the subsequent request message is based on determining that the stop condition is not satisfied (e.g. Figures 13-22 with the pagination setting and paragraphs [0078-0080] with the setting and continuous requests in Figure 23 via loop 730 and 732 components till all requests obtained).
Re claim 3, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 for each of the plurality of API responses, storing data in a payload of the API response to a destination or staging area (e.g. Figure 23 and paragraphs [0078-0080]).
Re claim 4, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 instantiating the pager comprises instantiating a parser (e.g. Figures 3-22 and paragraphs [0072-0074]).
Re claim 5, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 the pager invokes the parser after receipt of each API response (e.g. Figure 23 and paragraphs [0078-0080]).
Re claim 6, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 communicating each subsequent request message to the API endpoint (e.g. Figures 13-22 with the pagination setting and paragraphs [0078-0080] with the setting and continuous requests in Figure 23 via loop 730 and 732 components till all requests obtained).
Re claim 7, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 the paging logic is in a human-readable data serialization language (e.g. Figures 13-22 and paragraphs [0007 and 0052]).
Re claim 8, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 a non-transitory, machine-readable medium having program code for building a data pipeline stored thereon, the program code comprising instructions to (e.g. abstract and Figures 1-2 disclosing pagination framework): instantiate an application programming interface (API) client for a connector in a data pipeline (e.g. Figures 1-2 communication with external component 30 and paragraphs [0035-0037] wherein pager/data stream object handler interface with API from the external sources); for each of a plurality of API responses received after requesting data extraction from a data source according to configuration of the connector (e.g. Figure 23 and paragraphs [0078-0080]), parse paging logic of the connector to determine a first set of pagination parameters for extraction from the API response and to determine how to map at least a first of the first set of pagination parameters into a subsequent request (e.g. Figure 23 with extractor get page info 730 and paragraphs [0072-0074 and 0079] wherein certain page information is parsed and extracted); indicate to the API client the first set of pagination parameters to extract from the API response and the mapping of the first pagination parameter into a subsequent request (e.g. Figures 5-22 with pager setting configuration/parameters and paragraphs [0063, 0071, 0074 and 0079] wherein the extracted information is mapped to the next request); and generate the subsequent request message with a value of the first pagination parameter extracted from the API response assigned to an element of the subsequent request message according to the mapping (e.g. Figures 1-2 and 23 with the additional request of the pagination and paragraphs [0078-0080]).
Re claim 9, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 instructions for the API client include the instructions to generate the subsequent request message (e.g. Figures 13-22 with pagination setting parameters and paragraphs [0067-0069]).
Re claim 10, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 11, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 12, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 the program code further comprises instructions to communicate to a manager of the data pipeline completion of data extraction (e.g. Figures 1-2 and 23 and paragraph [0037]).
Re claim 13, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 the program code further comprises instructions to instantiate a parser for the API client, wherein the parser executes the instructions to parse the paging logic and the instructions to indicate the first set of pagination parameters to extract and the mapping (e.g. Figure 23 with extractor get page info 730 and paragraphs [0072-0074 and 0079] wherein certain page information is parsed and extracted).
Re claim 14, Nerius et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 the program code further comprises instructions of the API client, the instructions of the of API client comprising instructions to communicate each subsequent request to an API endpoint indicated in configuration of the connector (e.g. Figures 13-23 and paragraphs [0076-0080] with multiple requests to the API endpoint for obtaining all paginated data).
Re claim 15, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Re claim 16, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9. thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Re claim 17, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 10. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Re claim 18, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 11. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Re claim 19, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 12. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Re claim 20, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 13. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0149756 discloses a system that can automatically match, link, or otherwise associate electronic activities with one or more record objects.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0003683 discloses a paging entity and an action entity are identified based on a job description associated with the triggering event. Job data is retrieved from a data source based on the paging entity.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0302001 discloses a server is communicatively coupled to a data repository and is configured to store a data in the data repository.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0232348 discloses a document annotation system receives a document in an original format including content. The system converts the document to an intermediate format including page data elements representing pagination within the document.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0083069 discloses a method for providing applications to one or more requesting devices is provided. The method comprises a step of first receiving an application request from the one or more requesting devices.
K.R. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0057631 discloses a compute instance may cause the compute-service-neutral cloud integration application to perform operations including obtaining a specification associated with a remote network, which specification is (i) for the remote network. It defines an aggregation point, (ii) a type of pagination associated with the aggregation point, and (iii) mappings between fields of database tables and descriptions of computing services provided by a remote network.
U.S. Patent No. 12,007,977 discloses a target storage node for a new replica being added to a replica group for a database may obtain a paginated result of a scan of ordered items of the database from a source. The paginated result may have a log sequence number that corresponds to a replica log consistent with the paginated result.
U.S. Patent No. 10,997,000 discloses a system that to implement a multi-region event publishing system to broadcast heterogeneous events across regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights