Non-Art Rejection
1. 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.
2. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Per claims 4 and 14, paragraphs 29 and 46 of the specification merely teach that data can be divided into partitions for parallel processing and that a number of columns and slots can be defined. However, it does not reasonably describe types of columns and slots. For instance, it is not clear whether the “slot” refers to time slot or data slot. The specification also does not describe how columns and slots can be defined to control parallelization of extraction, processing, and ingestion of the data as claimed. Therefore, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for claims 4 and 14.
Art Rejection
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0385267, in view of Wilhelm, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0138337, and Hara, U.S. pat. No. 6,427,145.
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 for definition of a configuration file for the ingestion of the data (see par 0043);
b) receive the log data including 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 explicitly teach extracting the data through an application programming interface according to the parameters of the configuration file. Wilhelm however discloses a prior art method for using data ingestion engine to extract user data through an application programming interface according to the parameters of the configuration file, i.e., user’s desired format (see Wilhelm, par 0038, 0072, 0091).
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 Wilhelm teaching because it would have enabled extracting specific user data from the log data (see Wilhelm, par 0038).
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, such use of data structure comprising a number of configurable columns and slots for storing various data fields for specific data format is known in the art as disclosed by Hara, (see Hara, col 8, ln 26-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Hara’s data structure in Ahn because it would have enabled inquiring/processing data more quickly (see Hara, col 15, ln 11-20). It would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize that such use of data structure for storing ingested data would have been included configuration/defining the structure in configuration file before performing data ingestion (see Ahn, par 0044).
Per claim 2, Wilhelm teaches that authentication data is configurable and includes a token (see par 0107).
Per claim 4, Ahn teaches controlling the parallel process of different portions of the ingested data, wherein different parameters of the configuration file are configured/defined before the parallel process (see par 0044-0045).
While Ahn does not explicitly teach “controlling” the parallel process by defining a number of columns/slots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that many parameters of the configuration such as number of slots/columns of a data record, i.e., number of portions of ingested data, would have had a control effect on the rate of the parallel processing.
Per claim 5, Wilhelm teaches defining/identifying a format for the ingestion of data (see par 0090), wherein the data comprises date data, e.g., calendar year (see par 0091).
Per claim 6, Ahn teaches pre-processing the data for the ingestion by dynamically requesting data from data sources in the Internet using Internet protocol (see par 0099, 0101). Ahn does not explicitly teach that the request comprises URL. However, such use of URL to connect to a data source in the Internet is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize such generation of URL in Ahn because it would have enabled requesting data for ingestion.
Per claim 7, Wilhem teaches post-processing the data by transforming the data after the ingestion including converting data collected from various sources to a structured data (see par 0094). It is noted that data from various sources could be semi-structured or structured data.
Per claim 8, Wilhem teaches that the ingestion API comprises REST API (see par 0107).
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 and 14-20 are corresponding method of apparatus claims 1-2 and 4-10 and hence are rejected for the same rationale set forth for claims 1-2 and 4-10.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant’s arguments filed March 16, 2026 with respect to claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Per 112 first rejection of claims 4 and 14, applicant asserts that paragraphs 29, 34 and 46 together provides a clear guidance on how column and slots are configured to control parallelization. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited paragraphs in the specification merely teach that data can be divided into partitions for parallel processing and that a number of columns and slots can be defined. However, it does not reasonably describe types of columns and slots. For instance, it is not clear whether the “slot” refers to time slot or data slot. Also there is not a discussion in the specification as to how columns and slots can be defined to control parallelization of extraction, processing, and ingestion of the data as claimed. While the current specification might enable a general parallel processing of ingested data since parallel processing method is well known in the art, it does not however reasonably provide enablement for configuring a number of columns and slots to control parallelization of extraction, processing, and ingestion of the data as required in claims 4 and 14. Without showing a concrete example or implementation, the alleged disclosure amounts to a speculation (not a patentable limitation) that changing number of columns/slots would control or affect the speed of parallel processing.
Per 103 rejection, applicant alleges that cited art fails to disclose the claimed invention. Particularly, applicant asserts that Hara’s data structures comprising a number of columns and slots are not for data ingestion or for controlling ingestion operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per claim 1, Hara discloses a data structure for storing different types of data including Ahn’s ingested data, wherein the data structure comprises configurable slots and columns for storing different types of data (see Hara, col 8, ln 26-45 and col 9, ln 24-40). On the other hand, Ahn teaches performing data ingestion including receiving data, processing the received data and storing processed data in a data structure (see Ahn, par 0043-0045). Since claim 1 only requires using structured data having columns and slots for performing (not for controlling) the ingestion of data, i.e., storing ingested data, the examiner submits that the combination of Ahn and Hara would meet the alleged limitation.
Applicant also alleges that there is no motivation to combine Ahn with Hara teaching. Examiner disagrees.
As discussed above, Ahn teaches performing data ingestion which also includes the step of storing ingested data in a data structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Hara’s data structure in Ahn because it would have enabled inquiring/processing data more quickly. It would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize that such use of data structure for storing ingested data would have been included configuration/defining the structure in configuration file before performing data ingestion (see Ahn, par 0044).
Per claim 4, examiner submits that Ahn teaches controlling the parallel process of different portions of the ingested data, wherein different parameters of the configuration file are configured/defined before the parallel process (see par 0044-0045).
While Ahn does not explicitly teach “controlling” the parallel process by defining a number of columns/slots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that many parameters of the configuration such as number of slots/columns of a data record, i.e., number of portions of ingested data, would have had a control effect on the rate of the parallel processing.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION.
7. 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
3/30/26
Prosecution Insights