Art Rejection
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0385267, in view of Narayanan, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2025/0139554, and Nagarathnam, U.S. pat. No. 11,036,765.
Per claim 1, Ahn discloses a computer system for ingestion of data, comprising one or more processors and a storage storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to:
a) authenticate a user to allow access of the system including performing validation of a configuration file for the ingestion of the data (see par 0043);
b) receive the configuration file, wherein the configuration file defines parameters for the ingestion of the data (see par 0044);
c) perform remediation on an error record in the data according to an error code associated with the error record (see par 0051, 0054).
Ahn does not teach allowing the user to define a configuration file for performing data ingestion, extracting data through an application programming interface (API) and controlling partition of data according to the parameters of the configuration file. Narayanan discloses a method for allowing user to define and generate configuration files for data ingestion (see Narayanan, par 0009, 0020-0022), wherein output data is extracted through API, e.g., data filtering and enrichment (see Narayanan, par 0009, 0036), and parameters of the configuration file are used to control data partitioning and parallel execution (see Narayanan, par 0009, 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahn with Narayanan teaching because it would have enabled user to define and control a plurality of data ingestion functions including data partitioning and parallel execution for faster processing (see Narayanan, par 0008-0009).
Ahn also does not teach that the configuration file parameters include a number of columns and a number of slots for performing the ingestion of the data. However, Nagarathnam discloses another method of performing data ingestion with parallel execution by partitioning data into columns, i.e., corresponds to a number of partitioned data processors, and slots, i.e., corresponds to a number of processes at each partitioned data processor, wherein number of partitioned data processors and number of processes per partitioned data processor are configurable (see Nagarathnam, col 5, ln 16-18 and col 6, ln 35-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ahn with Nagarathnam’s teaching because it would have enabled implementing parallel processing to perform data ingestion (see Nagarathnam, col 6, ln 35-42).
Per claim 2, Narayanan teaches using a configurable token-based (Oauth) authentication protocol (see par 0041).
Per claim 5, Ahn teaches defining/identifying a format for the ingestion of data (see par 0063). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize that data format would have included any known data type including date format.
Per claim 7, Narayanan teaches post-processing the data by transforming the data after the ingestion including converting data collected from various sources to a structured data, e.g., data filtering and enrichment (see par 0036). It is noted that data from various sources could be semi-structured or structured data.
Per claim 8, Narayanan teaches that the ingestion API comprises REST API (see par 0041).
Per claims 9-10, Ahn teaches that a number of tries for the remediation, i.e., by using different user interfaces, is configurable, i.e., selectable by the user (see par 0054-0056), wherein the error code dictates a type of the remediation of the error (see par 0051).
Claims 11-12, 15 and 17-20 are corresponding method of apparatus claims 1-2, 5 and 7-10 and hence are rejected for the same rationale set forth for claims 1-2, 5 and 7-10.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s arguments filed May 29, 2026 with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 have been considered but are deemed moot in view of new ground of rejection set forth above. Particularly, Narayanan is now cited to show using a configuration file for data ingestion to control data partition and parallel execution.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
8/24/26
Prosecution Insights