Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present applicati7410on 18/708,144, filed on 5/7/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/138016 filed on 12/09/2022
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16,18-21 are pending in this application, claim 17 canceled
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 6/23/2026
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 3/14/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under
35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA
application # 202111612715.9 filed on 12/27/2021
.Specification
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment to the specification filed on 5/7/2024
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed6/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-16,18-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
a)At page , claim 1, under 35 USC 101, applicant argues:
A human cannot practically, in his mind or using pen and paper, perform: in response to a first operation on a graphical user interface displaying a first table, determining data in the first table, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of a data saving operation, a data deletion operation, a data modification operation, or an operation of closing the first table; automatically updating data in a second table in a database based on the data in the first table without user interaction with the database, wherein the first table is an online table located outside the database, and wherein the first table and the second table are in an association relationship………….(p 8-9)
Claim 1 as a whole, especially as clarified, reflects the practical application of improving data management systems as described in Applicant's specification. More specifically, "in response to a first operation on a graphical user interface displaying a first table, determining data in the first table, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of a data saving operation, a data deletion operation, a data modification operation, or an operation of closing the first table; automatically updating data in a second table in a database based on the data in the first table without user interaction with the database, wherein the first table is an online table located outside the database, and wherein the first table and the second table are in an association relationship," as claimed, uses an online table (first table) located outside a database as an interface of user interaction, and performs operation on the data (such as addition, deletion, modification, and query) in the database through the online table without the need to develop a separate management system, thereby reducing development costs, and an online document has a diffusion characteristic and can be processed collaboratively by multiple people at the same time, thereby meeting the needs of multiple users. Consequently, the claims integrate into a practical application of improving data management system……..(p 10)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as amended 6/23/2026) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception”. These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
As best understood by the examiner, the additional element of data saving operation, a data deletion operation, a data modification operation………….. in the claim 1 (as amended 6/23/2026) herein does not make the claim rooted in computer technology or improve the functioning of a computer, mere data update(ing) and/or data modify(ing) operation(s) of data table(s) and is NOT an improvement and hence does not result in a practical application. It is further noted data saving operation, a data deletion operation, a data modification operation “known” in the database art and hence are well-understood, routine and conventional activities and do not amount or add significantly more, do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”. The limitations when taken individually or as an ordered combination do not offer an inventive concept that may amount to add significantly more. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitations (as amended 6/23/2026) may grouping of abstract idea(s) because they cover concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, furthermore, mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and are insignificant extract solution activity, amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus these arguments are not persuasive.
See Alice, 573 US at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,1378 (Fed.Cir.2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction)
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 2-16,20-21 depend from claim 1,18
b)At page 11, claim 1, applicant argues:
Krishnamurthy does not disclose determining the structured data in the source database table in response to any operation, …………Krishnamurthy does not disclose receiving any operation via graphical user interface
Examiner’s response:
As to the above argument, as best understood by the examiner, the prior art of Krishnamurthy is directed to defining data structure of the database particularly data types in creating table(s) and data entries via graphical user interface, Krishnamurthy teaches database schema defining source database table, target database table particularly defining data types in determining data in source and target tables including data entries (Abstract, fig 2, 0023-0024)
c)At page 11-12, claim 1, applicant argues:
Krishnamurthy does not disclose that the first operation comprises at least one of a data saving operation, a data deletion operation, a data modification operation……….
Examiner’s response:
As to the above argument ( c), as best understood by the examiner, the prior art of Krishnamurthy teaches transferring data between data stores (0034, line 1-2), store type identifiers with structured data and enable data store (0033, line 1-2), modify(ing) data (0032-0033), the prior art of Aday teaches “a data deletion operation, a data modification operation“ (Aday: 0036,0038,0042)
Examiner noted applicant’s arguments on claims 2-16, 18, 20-21, and examiner applies above arguments to claim 18-19 and claims 2-16, 20-21 depend from claim 1,18
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 1-16,18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-16,18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,9,15, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,18-19:
“in response to a first operation on a graphical user interface displaying a first table, determining data in the first table, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of a data saving operation, a data deletion operation, a data modification operation, or an operation of closing the first table;
automatically updating data in a second table in a database based on the data in the first table without user interaction with the database, wherein the first table is an online table located outside the database, and wherein the first table and the second table are in an association relationship”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components ( a person can mentally locate data table including target data structure). For example interaction with database table(s) and association relationship including data operations such as delete, modify and like in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere data structure of multiple tables
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of database and/or data table(s) to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para: 0081-0085 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 0081-0085 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,20, further elaborates “wherein, before responding to the first operation on the graphical user interface displaying the first table, the method further comprises:
creating the first table based on the target database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3, 21, further elaborates “wherein, creating the first table based on the database comprises:
displaying a header of a data table of the target database and a data type corresponding to the header;
determining a first header of the first table and a first data type based on the header of the data table of the database and the data type;
generating the first table according to the first header of the first table and the first data type”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4, further elaborates “ wherein, determining a first header and a first data type of the first table based on the header of the data table of the database and the data type comprises: creating a first configuration table, the first configuration table being used to store a first header of the first table, a first data type and an identification of the first table, the first configuration table being an online table located outside the database;
generating the first table according to the first configuration table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5, further elaborates “wherein, before responding to the first operation on the graphical user interface displaying the first table, the method further comprises:
creating the second table associated with the first table in the database according to relevant information of the first table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6, further elaborates “wherein, creating the second table associated with the first table in the database according to relevant information of the first table comprises:
determining a second header of the second table and a second data type according to the first header of the first table and the first data type;
creating the second table according to the second header of the second table and the second data type, and associating the first table with the second table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7, further elaborates “wherein, associating the second table with the first table comprises:
creating a second configuration table, the second configuration table being used to store an association relationship between the second table and the first table, the second header, an association relationship between the second header and the first header; wherein, the second configuration table is an online table located outside the database;
generating the second table according to the second configuration table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8, further elaborates “wherein, a number of the second tables is equal or greater than two; the second configuration table further stores an association relationship between at least two of the second tables”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9, further elaborates “wherein, before updating the data in the second table based on the data in the first table, the method further comprises:
verifying the first table, to determine that the first table meets a verification requirement”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10, further elaborates “wherein, verifying the first table comprises at least one of the following:
verifying a data type of current data in the first table;
verifying a header of the first table; verifying an association relationship between the first table and the second table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11, further elaborates “wherein, at least one of the following is satisfied:
verifying a data type of current data in the first table comprises: obtaining a first data type of data of the first table from a first configuration table; determining a data type of the current data in the first table complying with the first data type;
verifying a header of the first table comprises:
obtaining a first header of the first table from a first configuration table; determining a current header in the first table is consistent with a first header stored in the first configuration table;
verifying an association relationship between the first table and second table comprises:
determining that a row or column in the first table is in a frozen state, the target row or column being used to store a row or column identification of row or column data located in the second table associated with data of the first table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12, further elaborates “wherein, updating the data in the second table associated with the first table comprises:
determining a header located in the second table associated with data in the first table;
determining row or column data in a second table associated with data in the first table;
updating data corresponding to the header in the target row or column data of the second table according to data in the first table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 13, further elaborates “wherein, updating data in the second table associated with the first table comprises:
determining a header located in the second table associated with data in the first table;
determining whether a row or column identification associated with data in a first table is stored in a target row or column of the first table, the target row or column identification being an identification of target row and column data in the second table;
if yes, updating data corresponding to the header in the row or column data corresponding to the row or column identifier according to data in the first table;
otherwise, creating row and column data in the second table, and obtaining a target row or column identification of the target row or column data, writing obtained data in the first table to establish an association relationship between data in the first table and the target row or column identification”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14, further elaborates “wherein, determining a target header located in the second table associated with data in the first table comprises:
determining a header where data in the first table is located;
determining the header associated with the header where data in the first table is located, according to an association relationship between a second header of the second table and a first header of the first table stored in a second configuration table.
Claim 15, further elaborates “wherein, writing an obtained target row or column identification in the first table comprises:
writing and freezing the row or column identification in a row or column of the first table”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 16, further elaborates “wherein, updating data in the second table associated with the first table based on data in the first table comprises:
determining a difference between data in a first table and data in an associated second table;
determining a data set that needs to be updated based on the difference;
updating data of the second table according to the data set”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17. (Cancelled)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16,18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy et al., (hereafter Krishnamurthy), US Pub. No. 2003/0195987 published Oct, 2003 in view of Adayilamuriyil et al., (hereafter Aday), US Pub. No. 2013/0006950 published Jan, 2013
As to Claim 1,18-19, Krishnamurthy teaches a system which including “A data processing method, comprising” (Krishnamurthy: Abstract):
“in response to a first operation on a graphical user interface displaying a first table (Krishnamurthy: Abstract, fig 2, 0023-0024 – Krishnamurthy teaches database schema defining source database table, target database table particularly defining data types in determining data in source and target tables);
PNG
media_image1.png
227
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining data in the first table, (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, source table element 200) wherein the first operation comprises at least one of a data saving operation, operation of closing the first table (Krishnamurthy: 0032-0033 – Krishnamurthy teaches defining data structure supporting various data operations on table(s) such as modify(ing), saves the data and like)
“wherein, the first table , located outside the database, and wherein the first table and the second table are in an association relationship (Krishnamurthy: fig 2-3, 0021-0025 – Krishnamurthy teaches source database, target database have source table, target tables respectively logically performing and/implementation of database operations.
It is however, noted that Krishnamurthy does not disclose “a data deletion operation, a data modification operation“, “first table is an online table located outside the target database “, although Krishnamurthy teaches source database, target database connected via network (Krishnamurthy: Abstract, fig 1-2), and supporting database operations such as “modifying”, “insert”, and save operations (Krishnamurthy: 0032-0033). On the other hand, Aday teaches “a data deletion operation, a data modification operation“ (Aday: 0036,0038,0042 – Aday teaches modifying data table(s), select, delete data operations), “first table is an online table located outside the database “(Aday: Abstract, fig 2-4, 0031-0032,0036 – Aday teaches defining source, target table data structure associated with respective lock performing online update table, may allow modify table or page or may modify table)
PNG
media_image2.png
226
119
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
198
157
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention attaching one or more tables online, modifying indicies and table structure of the target table(s) of Aday et al., into transferring structured data between different data stores particularly between source, target databases of Krishnamurthy et al., because both Krishnamurthy, Aday teaches source, target databases, defining data structure connected in a network environment (Krishnamurthy: Abstract, fig 2-3; Aday: Abstract, fig 1-2) and they both are from the same field of environment. Because both Krishnamurthy, Aday teaches logical operations between source, target database table, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other that including for example adding columns and/or partition(ing) to achieve loading the new sets of data, and setting an online alter flag that indicating operation is in progress (Aday: 0007-0008) thereby improves quality and reliability of the system.
As to Claim 2, 20, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed: wherein, before responding to the first operation on the graphical user interface displaying the first table, the method further comprises: (Krishnamurthy: fig 1-2)
“creating the first table based on the database” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, 0024)
PNG
media_image4.png
290
195
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, 21, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed: wherein, creating the first table based on the database comprises: (Krishnamurthy: fig 1-2)
“displaying a header of a data table of the database and a data type corresponding to the header” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, source database element 208, 200, 204 - and target database table 300, 306, 308, 304);
PNG
media_image5.png
88
157
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
84
148
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“determining a first header of the first table and a first data type based on the header of the data table of the database and the data type” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, first header corresponds to fig 2, element 206,208 type name, source type identifier is part of the source database table data type;
“generating the first table according to the first header of the first table and the first data type” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2 source database data structure).
As to Claim 4, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed: “wherein, determining a first header and a first data type of the first table based on the header of the data table of the database and the data type comprises (Krishnamurthy: fig 2 – first header of first table corresponds to fig 2, element 200,206,208); creating a first configuration table, the first configuration table being used to store a first header of the first table, (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 200) a first data type(fig 2, element 206) and an identification of the first table (fig 2, source database table), the first configuration table being an table located outside the target database(Krishnamurthy: fig 2);
“generating the first table according to the first configuration table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, 0022-0024). On the other hand, Aday disclosed an online table located outside the database” (Aday: Abstract, fig 2-4, 0031-0032,0036)
As to Claim 5, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed “wherein, before responding to the first operation on the graphical user interface displaying the first table, the method further comprises (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 200)
“creating the second table associated with the first table in the database according to relevant information of the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, fig 4, 0027-0028)
PNG
media_image7.png
224
150
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 6, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed” wherein, creating the second table associated with the first table in the database according to relevant information of the first table comprises: (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, fig 4)
“determining a second header of the second table and a second data type according to the first header of the first table and the first data type” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2,element 300, 306,308 target database table, data type respectively) ;
“creating the second table according to the second header of the second table and the second data type, and associating the first table with the second table (Krishnamurthy: fig 2 element 200,300 respectively).
As to Claim 7, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed wherein, associating the second table with the first table comprises (Krishnamurthy: fig 2):
“creating a second configuration table, the second configuration table being used to store an association relationship between the second table and the first table, the second header (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, defining both source, target database table data structure), an association relationship between the second header and the first header; wherein, the second configuration table is an online table located outside the database” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, fig 4);
PNG
media_image5.png
88
157
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
84
148
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
224
150
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“generating the second table according to the second configuration table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 300 and fig 4, element 300).
As to Claim 8, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed “wherein, a number of the second tables is equal or greater than two; the second configuration table further stores an association relationship between at least two of the second tables” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2 – each target database table defined with target type identifier, type name and like).
As to Claim 9, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed “ wherein, before updating the data in the second table based on the data in the first table, the method further comprises: (Krishnamurthy: fig 2)
“verifying the first table, to determine that the first table meets a verification requirement” (Krishnamurthy: 0021-0022).
As to Claim 10, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed
“verifying a data type of current data in the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 206,208);
“verifying a header of the first table; verifying an association relationship between the first table and the second table” (Krishnamurthy: element 206,208, 306,308 of target database table element 300).
As to Claim 11, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed
“verifying a data type of current data in the first table comprises: obtaining a first data type of data of the first table from a first configuration table; determining a data type of the current data in the first table complying with the first data type” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, 0021-0022, data types corresponds to fig 2, element 206,208)
“verifying a header of the first table comprises” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, data structure , 206,208,204):
:obtaining a first header of the first table from a first configuration table” Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 200);
determining a current header in the first table is consistent with a first header stored in the first configuration table (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 200, first configuration table corresponds to element 200);
“verifying an association relationship between the first table and second table comprises” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2 source target database tables associated with the client application):
“determining that a row or column in the first table is in a frozen state, the target row or column being used to store a row or column identification of row or column data located in the second table associated with data of the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, fig 4, element 300).
As to Claim 12, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed
wherein, updating the data in the second table associated with the first table comprises: (fig 2, 0027)
“determining a header located in the second table associated with data in the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, fig 4);
“determining target row or column data in a second table associated with data in the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 200, 300 source and target database table having rows and columns is integral part of the data table data structure);
“updating data corresponding to the header in the target row or column data of the second table according to data in the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 3, 0027-0028).
As to Claim 13, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed
“wherein, updating data in the second table associated with the first table comprises” (Krishnamurthy: 0027-0028):
“determining a target header located in the second table associated with data in the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 306, 308);
“determining whether a row or column identification associated with data in a first table is stored in a target row or column of the first table, the target row or column identification being an identification of target row and column data in the second table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, element 200,300 source, database table defines data types of respective tables having rows, columns);
“ if yes, updating data corresponding to the target header in the row or column data corresponding to the row or column identifier according to data in the first table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2-3, 0027-0028) ;
“otherwise, creating row and column data in the second table, and obtaining a row or column identification of the target row or column data, writing obtained data in the first table to establish an association relationship between data in the first table and the row or column identification” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, 0007, fig 4, 0031-0032).
As to Claim 14, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed
wherein, determining a header located in the second table associated with data in the first table comprises (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, 206,208 and element 200):
“determining a header where data in the first table is located (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, data structure , 206,208,204);
“determining the header associated with the header where data in the first table is located, according to an association relationship between a second header of the second table and a first header of the first table stored in a second configuration table” (Krishnamurthy: fig 2, fig 4, 200,300 defining the data structure of source and database tables having header element 206,208,306,308 respectively).
As to Claim 15,, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed “wherein, writing an obtained target row or column identification in the first table comprises (Krishnamurthy: fig 2)
On the other hand, Aday disclosed “writing and freezing the row or column identification in a target row or column of the first table” (0032,0036-0037,0042).
As to Claim 16, the combination of Krishnamurthy, Aday disclosed
wherein, updating data in the second table associated with the first table based on data in the first table comprises: (Krishnamurthy: fig 2-3, 0027-0028)
“determining a difference between data in a first table and data in an associated second table” (Krishnamurthy, fig 2, fig 4 ,0036-0037);
“determining a data set that needs to be updated based on the difference” (Krishnamurthy: 0030-0032);
“updating data of the second table according to the data set” (Krishnamurthy: (Krishnamurthy: 0027-0028).
Claim 17. (Cancelled)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2003/0195987 directed to data structure between different data stores
b. US Pub. No. 2013/0006950 directed to online partitioned tables
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights