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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 July 2025 has been entered.
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 a mental process without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for extract, transform and load (ETL) processing executed by a processing device, the method comprising:
receiving, from a data catalog, a field mapping between application data and a target schema;
receiving, from an ETL processing queue and after the field mapping is received, a signal comprising metadata and indicating that a record or a data file related to the application data is ready for processing;
determining source data by processing the metadata to identify a location of the record or the data file and retrieving the record or the data file from the identified location; and
providing, using the field mapping received from the data catalog, source data to a table defined according to the target schema after retrieving the record or the data file from the identified location.”
Independent claims 17 and 19 recite similar subject matter.
This is a mental process because the claims are directed toward data receiving an identification of data for analysis and performing the analysis. The additional elements in the claims appear to be the receiving steps and the providing step.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. The receiving steps are merely data gathering steps and represent pre-solution activity. The providing step merely outputs source data to a table after an analysis, and is thus extra post-solution activity. None of these steps appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because each of the additional elements, in part and in whole, do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. Data gathering by receiving a mapping or receiving a signal is merely pre-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data output by providing source data to a table after processing is similarly post-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are similarly directed towards additional data definition, data analysis, and data output steps. They do not appear to provide a practical application or appear to contain elements that, in part or in whole, are significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are also rejected as being directed towards a mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 Cosgrove, JR et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0218052) in view of Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0071033).
As to claim 1, Cosgrove teaches a method for extract, transform and load (ETL) processing executed by a processing device, the method comprising:
receiving, from a data catalog, a field mapping between application data and a target schema (see Cosgrove paragraph [0050]. Cosgrove shows a mapping table that maps extraction sources and targets to custom attributes. The source data is “application data” because it is in a format output by an application. As noted in paragraphs [0041]-[0042], the system generates a configuration document that generates custom attribute metadata tables. These metadata tables, including a mapping table (paragraph [0044]) are used later in the process to facilitate ETL processing );
receiving, from an ETL processing [application] and after the field mapping is received, a signal comprising metadata and indicating that a record or a data file related to the application data is ready for processing (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0046]-[0047]. Cosgrove shows an ETL processing application that submits a signal to begin processing a record or data file related to a selected set of application data by showing the identification of custom attributes to be processed. As noted in between paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0044], [0047]-[0050], and [0050], the mapping table is updated and exists in the system before receiving an instruction to process data. The system uses an existing mapping table as part of the ETL process, [0050]);
determining source data by processing the metadata to identify a location of the record or the data file and retrieving the record or the data file from the identified location (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0050]. Cosgrove shows determining a source for the data to be processed. Also see Cosgrove paragraph [0053], in which data is extracted from the source); and
providing, using the field mapping received from the data catalog, source data to a table defined according to the target schema after retrieving the record or the data file from the identified location (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0053]-[0054]. Data is extracted from the source and provided to the target. The system uses a mapping table (paragraph [0050]). It is noted that the data is provided to the target after the data is extracted).
Cosgrove does not teach:
receiving, from an ETL processing queue, a signal comprising metadata.
Davis teaches:
receiving, from an ETL processing queue, a signal comprising metadata (see Davis paragraph [0052]. A cloud queue contains data for ETL processing, and is thus “an ETL processing queue.” An indication may be provided from the queue to the ETL service when new data is available for processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Cosgrove by the teachings of Davis because both references are directed towards ETL. Davis simply provides to Cosgrove the ability to perform dynamic processing of new records, which will increase the ability of Cosgrove to ensure that a target table is up to date.
As to claim 2, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the field mapping is stored to the data catalog by an application or server (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0022] and [0050]).
As to claim 3, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the application is configured to use the application data (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0022], [0050], and [0063]).
As to claim 4, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the application is configured to register, when available, a new record or a new source data file with the data catalog (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0022] and [0024]. Data in the data catalog may be updated).
As to claim 5, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the record or the data file were registered, with the data catalog, as ready for processing by the application (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0022] and [0024]. Data in the data catalog may be updated. After being updated, the data is ready for processing).
As to claim 6, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the record or the data file was aligned with the target schema by the data catalog (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0022] and [0050]).
As to claim 7, Cosgrove as modified by Davis teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the signal is inserted into the ETL processing queue by the data catalog (see Davis paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 8, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the field mapping is defined according to a type of the application data (see Cosgrove paragraph [0022]).
As to claim 9, Cosgrove as modified by Davis teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the signal is inserted by the data catalog based on a type of the record or the data file matching the type of the application data (see Davis paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 10, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target schema is deployed to a target table in the data catalog (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0014] and [0026] and Figure 1. The target table may be in a data repository, or data catalog, that also stores the mapping table).
As to claim 11, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the record or the data file is new or updated (see Davis paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 12, Cosgrove as modified by Davis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the signal includes the location of the record or the data file (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0046]-[0047]. The identification may include a source table).
As to claim 13, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data catalog provides the field mapping between the application data and the target schema when the record or the data file is not associated with a previously provided schema (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0050]-[0053]).
As to claim 14, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the source data is provided to the table using metadata provided by the data catalog (see Cosgrove paragraph [0050]).
As to claim 15, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the source data comprises first source data and the target schema comprises a first target schema (see Cosgrove paragraph [0050]), and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, from the data catalog, a second field mapping between a second application data and a second target schema (see Cosgrove paragraph [0055] and Figure 4, element 418. Notably, Figure 4 loops. There may be multiple identified field mappings and multiple target schemas and tables);
receiving, from the ETL processing queue, a second signal comprising second metadata and indicating that a second record or a second data file related to the second application data is ready for processing (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0046]-[0047] and Davis paragraph [0052] and the rejection of claim 1);
determining second source data by processing the second metadata to identify a second location of the second record or the second data file from the identified second location, wherein the first source data and the second source data comprise different formats (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0050] and [0053]-[0054] and the rejection of claim 1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that different data types could be used); and
providing second source data to the table according to the second target schema, wherein the first target schema and the second target schema are a same schema (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0050] and [0053]-[0054] and the rejection of claim 1. Paragraph [0051] shows that a determination may be made that a target table already exists. Because this determination may be made in a later loop after the application has already run, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a same schema may be used in subsequent loops).
As to claim 16, Cosgrove as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the source data comprises first source data and the target schema comprises a first target schema (see Cosgrove paragraph [0050]), and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, from the data catalog, a second field mapping between a second application data and a second target schema (see Cosgrove paragraph [0055] and Figure 4, element 418. Notably, Figure 4 loops. There may be multiple identified field mappings and multiple target schemas and tables);
receiving, from the ETL processing queue, a second signal comprising second metadata and indicating that a second record or a second data file related to the second application data is ready for processing (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0046]-[0047] and Davis paragraph [0052] and the rejection of claim 1);
determining second source data by processing the second metadata to identify a second location of the second record or the second data file from the identified second location, wherein the first source data and the second source data comprise different formats (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0050] and [0053]-[0054] and the rejection of claim 1); and
providing second source data to a second table defined according to the second target schema, wherein the first target schema and the second target schema are different schemas (see Cosgrove paragraphs [0050] and [0053]-[0054] and the rejection of claim 1. Paragraph [0052] shows that a determination may be made that a target table configuration does not exist. Thus, in a subsequent loop, a different schema may be required).
As to claims 17 and 19, see the rejection of claim 1, and Cosgrove paragraph [0066] for the non-transitory medium and [0071] for the processor).
As to claims 18 and 20, see the rejection of claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to the 35 USC 101 Rejection
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 of the Subject Application, as a whole, improves the processing of a computer and provides a technological solution to a technological problem. The Applicant contends that the claims have not been considered as a whole.”
Applicant continues, arguing that “Claim 1, as a whole, improves computer technology and provides technological solutions to technological problems (akin to Enfish v. Microsoft and McRO v. Bandai) and, thus, is not abstract. The combination of steps and the specific logical ordering of the steps contributes to the improvements and technological solutions.”
Applicant continues, arguing that “Conventional ETL processing is the technology being improved. Drawbacks of the conventional ETL processing methods and corresponding improvements and solutions of the claimed technology are discussed in Paragraphs. [0010]-[0015]. Specifically, "reversing the order of operations in traditional enterprise data techniques" discussed in Para. [0011] is embodied in Claim 1. It is the order of the steps listed and the entire combination of steps that provides the improvement to ETL technology of being able to eliminate custom coding and/or scheduling of ETL jobs, among other things. This specific ordering of steps and combination of steps decreases the level of effort required to ingest new data sources and speeds up integration with new data sources. Receiving a field mapping between application data and a target schema ahead of retrieving the data and then providing the data is new and is an improvement to existing ETL technologies.”
Applicant concludes “As a whole, the claim provides improvements to ETL processing and thus, the additional elements as identified by the Examiner amount to significantly more when considered in combination with other claim elements.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that the claimed steps appear to involve receiving a configuration, and after receiving the configuration, performing an ETL. This particular ordering of steps is not solving a particular problem in the field of ETL. ETL has, before Applicant’s earliest filing date of 19 May 2023, proceeding in an order of “receiving a configuration and [performing] an ETL after receiving the configuration” (see Wlliams et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0233905), paragraphs [0034]-[0035] which show conventional ETL processes defined by identifying source data, transformations, and target destinations before executing the ETL process and see Sassin (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0318272) paragraph [0002], which discusses conventional techniques for ETL including table/column mappings to move data from a source schema to a target schema). Thus, it was conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of ETL processing to define an ETL process, including source and target information, before executing the ETL process.
Additionally, it is noted that paragraph [0011] describes benefits of “def[ining] ETL jobs in a flexible manner that may be broadly applicable and/or scaled across a variety of data sources, data types, and/or target systems.” It is noted that neither data lineage, scaling jobs, multiple sources, multiple types, or multiple target systems are claimed in the independent claims. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “Dependent Claim 15 and 16 further include multiple source data and multiple data schemas further embodying a practical application of the technology. On Page 14 of the Office Action, the Examiner contends that the claims do not require "different types of source data". Claim 15, for example, requires first source data and second source data, wherein the first source data and second source data are different formats.”
In response to this argument, it is not apparent from Applicant’s arguments how having multiple data sources of data in different formats improves the processing of a computer or provides a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant has provided no argument relying on citations to the specification regarding how a system defining multiple source data and multiple data schemas solves a known problem at the time of filing in the technology of ETL. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Response to the 35 USC 103 Rejection
Applicant argues that “neither of cited references, alone or in combination, disclose each and every element of Claim 1 as amended. Removal of the obviousness rejection of Claim 1, as well as the claims which depend therefrom, is respectfully requested. The above-provided remarks apply with the same or similar force to amended Claim 17. Removal of the obviousness rejection of Claim 17 as well as the claims which depend therefrom is also respectfully requested.”
In response to this assertion, the cited combination of Cosgrove, JR et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0218052) in view of Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0071033) teaches the independent claims for the reasons provided in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152