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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 09/22/2025.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 16-17, 20, 26-28, 32-33, 37, 43-44, 47, and 53 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 28 are independent claims. In Amendment, claims 1, 10, 16-17, and 26-28 are amended and claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-15, 18-19, 21-25, 29-31, 34-36, 38-42, 45-46, and 48-52 are cancelled. This Office Action is made final.
Claim Objections
Claims {5-6, 10, 16-17, 20, 26-27} and {32-33, 37, 43-44, 47, and 53} are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims should be amended as “The system…” and “The method…” respectively for these two set of claims as they are referring to the same system and method claims 1 and 28 respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 10, 16-17, 20, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 1 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directing to a system claim however claim 1 does not claim any hardware structure as part of the system. Without explicitly disclosing any hardware structure for the system, the system claim under broadest reasonable interpretation merely comprises software module(s)/program(s) to perform the step of monitoring, ascertaining, reporting and updating. Thus, claim is rejected as directing to software per se which is not eligible for patentability.
Re claims 5-6, 10, 16-17, 20, and 26-27 are also rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 1 without curing deficiency identified above.
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 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)(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.
(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, 5-6, 10, 16-17, 20, 26-29, 32-33, 37, 43-44, 47, and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Averbuch (U.S. 2022/0319336 A1).
Re claim 1, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 a system for monitoring data elements (e.g. abstract), the system being operative to: monitor a multiplicity of data elements, some of which having associated therewith a data representation, each of said multiplicity of data elements comprising data element content and data element information, and each of said data representations comprising data representation information corresponding to at least a subset of said data element information (e.g. Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0050 and 0055-0056]); ascertain which of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored has an event notification associated therewith (e.g. Figures 1-2 second group and paragraphs [0051-0052]); and report a difference between said data representation information in a data representation associated with one of said multiplicity of data elements being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith, and corresponding data element information of that one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored (e.g. Figure 4 component 403 and paragraphs [0057-0059]), said difference comprising less than an entirety of said data representation information (e.g. abstract, paragraphs [0003 and 0032-0033] wherein the difference between two groups of reports is always less than the entirely reports themselves); and updating said data representation information associated with said one of said multiplicity of data elements being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith, to reflect said difference (e.g. paragraphs [0029, 0036, 0065 and 0078]).
Re claim 5, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 data representation information associated with one of said multiplicity of data elements being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith, is associated with said one of said multiplicity of data elements prior to said event notification (e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0097]).
Re claim 6, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 data representation information associated with one of said multiplicity of data elements being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith, is associated with said one of said multiplicity of data elements subsequent to said event notification, and is generated based on at least one data representation associated with at least one analogous data element (e.g. paragraphs [0042 and 0107]).
Re claim 10, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 receive at least one stored data representation of at least one data element other than that one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored which has an event notification associated therewith and providing pre- event data representation information to said difference reporter (e.g. Figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0051-0053]).
Re claim 16, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 ascertain whether one or more classification rules are applicable to said content of said data element being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith (e.g. paragraphs [0053 and 0074-0076]).
Re claim 17, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 compare said data representation information stored in said data representation associated with that one of said multiplicity of data elements being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith, and post-event data element information of said one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored (e.g. paragraphs [0031-0032 and 0108]); and update said data representation information associated with that one of said multiplicity of data elements being monitored, which has an event notification associated therewith, based on said comparing, to reflect said difference (e.g. paragraphs [0065 and 0078]).
Re claim 20, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 said event notification is a notification of at least one of: an actual access to that one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored which has an event notification associated there with (e.g. paragraph [0085]); a change in an access permission that one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored which has an event notification associated therewith, such as a change in at least one of a read permission, a write permission and a delete permission; a change in said data element content of that one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored which has an event notification associated therewith; and a change in data element information of that one of said multiplicity of said data elements being monitored which has an event notification associated therewith.
Re claim 26, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 said multiplicity of data elements comprises at least one billion data elements (e.g. paragraphs [0042-0043] with unlimited number of reports from sensors); and said system is operative to update said multiplicity of data elements in less than one minute (e.g. paragraphs [0065 and 0078] wherein updating difference report can be in short amount of time is known).
Re claim 27, Averbuch discloses in Figures 1-12 employ information contained in updated data representations (e.g. Figures 2, 4, and 6).
Re claim 28, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 28 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 29, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 29 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 32, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 32 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 33, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 33 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 37, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10. Thus, claim 37 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Re claim 43, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 16. Thus, claim 43 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Re claim 44, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 17. Thus, claim 44 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Re claim 47, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 20. Thus, claim 47 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 20 above.
Re claim 53, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 26. Thus, claim 53 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Re claim 54, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 27. Thus, claim 54 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 27 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 5-6, 10, 16-17, 20, 26-28, 32-33, 37, 43-44, 47, and 53 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 8-9 for claims rejected under 102 rejection that Averbuch reports an entirety of the data associated with the data value wherein the claimed invention reports particularly those values of data element information in one data element representation which differ from corresponding values of data element information.
The examiner respectfully submits that the claim is broadly draft without specific any structure for the data element. Thus, the data element can be broadly interpreted as any kind of data as either individual or whole data set which is reasonably met by the primary reference Averbuch which clearly discloses reporting the differences of data set once it receives from multiple source in order to update the associated/correspond information of the data set as seen above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451