DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s Application filed on October 9, 2025.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 9, 14, and 15 are independent. As a result claims 9-15 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 regarding the rejection of claims 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 9, 14, and 15 Shi does not teach or suggest the following limitation, a generator configured to, for at least one data type used by the data structure: select a source code generation plugin, assigned to the data type, from a plurality of source code generation plugins as disclosed in Applicants’ invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions.
With regards to a), Examiner appreciates the interpretation of the description given by Applicant in the response. In para [0021-0022], Shi teaches " The source database and the target database in embodiments of the present application may be other types of databases, which are not limited in the present application. The relational database can include, for example, MySQL, Oracle, SQLserver, PostgreSQL, or the like. [0022] Embodiment of the present application may be applied to a DataX frame. The DataX, which encapsulates conversion rules between various types of databases, is a tool for high-speed data exchange between heterogeneous databases/file systems and implements data exchange between any data processing systems”, para [0035], teaches “In the DataX frame, the MasterContainer module is started first, and after the MasterContainer module decomposes the synchronization job task into multiple sub-tasks, a Scheduler module can be called.”, “The scheduling task can start multiple SlaveContainer modules. Each SlaveContainer module can load a corresponding type of reader plug-in according to the type of the source database. The reader plug-in can read, from the database according to a data meta structure of this type of database, source data required by the synchronization sub-task.”, para [0036], Shi teaches “the source data can be converted into to-be-synchronized data matching a data meta format of a target database. For example, if the source database from which the source data is extracted is Oracle and the target database to which the source data is synchronized is MySQL, the source data in Oracle may be converted into a SQL sentence adaptive to MySQL.”. Therefore, SlaveContainer loading respective corresponding type of reader plug-in according to the type of source database from a DataX frame containing conversions rules between different types of databases, such as SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL have various reader plug-ins for specific data collection purposes and the reader plug-ins can be considered source code plug-ins.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 9, 14, and 15 Shi does not teach or suggest the following limitation generate, using the selected source code generation plugin, conversion source code for converting the data type to a target format as disclosed in Applicants’ invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions.
With regards to b), Examiner appreciates the interpretation of the description given by Applicant in the response. In Fig. 1, para [0022-0023], Shi teaches "The DataX, which encapsulates conversion rules between various types of databases, is a tool for high-speed data exchange between heterogeneous databases/file systems and implements data exchange between any data processing systems. [0023] In some embodiments, a user may configure a synchronization job. For example, in a DataX frame, the user may input a command (e.g., /home/taobao/datax/bin/datax.py-e command) to select a source database and a target database in a source database interface. And a target database interface can, for example, select a database (e.g., a SQLserver) as the source database and select another database (e.g., an Oracle database) as the target database. Then, the user configures a corresponding configuration file in a Json format (e.g., job.json) for the synchronization job. The file job.json can include the range of source data to be synchronized.”, para [0035], teaches “In the DataX frame, the MasterContainer module is started first, and after the MasterContainer module decomposes the synchronization job task into multiple sub-tasks, a Scheduler module can be called.”, “The scheduling task can start multiple SlaveContainer modules. Each SlaveContainer module can load a corresponding type of reader plug-in according to the type of the source database. The reader plug-in can read, from the database according to a data meta structure of this type of database, source data required by the synchronization sub-task.”, para [0036], Shi teaches “the source data can be converted into to-be-synchronized data matching a data meta format of a target database. For example, if the source database from which the source data is extracted is Oracle and the target database to which the source data is synchronized is MySQL, the source data in Oracle may be converted into a SQL sentence adaptive to MySQL.”. Therefore, converting source data into to-be-synchronized data matching data meta format of a target database using reader plug-in.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 9, 14, and 15 Bland does not teach or suggest the following limitation generate, by means of compilation using the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format as disclosed in Applicants’ invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions.
With regards to c), Examiner appreciates the interpretation of the description given by Applicant in the response. In Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034], Bland teaches "the plugin reads through a SKETCH file and recursively traverses the document tree, extracting all content fields. These fields are parsed, sorted and formatted. The plugin then converts this hierarchical data structure to a flat format that can be understood by Excel.”, para [0035], teaches “the plugin will accept an updated EXCEL file, locate any changed fields and copy them back to their original position within the SKETCH document. This also include Symbols that are changed globally throughout the SKETCH document”, para [0037], teaches “FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate a transformation of content from a SKETCH file to a spreadsheet file.”, para [0040], teaches “A comparison between the view 300 of the SKETCH file and a view 350 of the resultant file created by the plugin export module is provided by FIGS. 3A and 3B.”. Therefore, plugin for transforming content of a SKETCH file to a spreadsheet file, the plugin accepting an updated EXCEL file changes and copy changes back to original positions within the SKETCH document is the compilation using source code.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- an input interface in claim 9;
- a generator in claim 9, 11, and 12;
- a converter in claim 9, 11, and 12;
Despite Applicant’s assertion in page 2 ln 3-5, page 4 ln 21-23, and page 11 ln 19-23 ln of the specification that the terms “input interface” and “generator” and “converter” are not intended as generic terms, the above-listed elements still meet the criteria of the three-pronged test for 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. That is, Applicant’s mere assertion that a “input interface” and “generator” and “convertor” are not a generic placeholder does not make it so, and each of these elements are recited without sufficient structure for performing each claimed function because a “input interface” and “generator” and “converter” do not have inherent structural meaning.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, each of the various “input interface” and “generator” and “converter” elements listed above are interpreted as computer-executable instructions implemented with general purpose processor-based computing devices, consistent with at least page 2 ln 3-5, page 4 ln 21-23, and page 11 ln 19-23 of Applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2018/0210937) (hereinafter Shi) in view of Bland et al. (US 2020/0394152) (hereinafter Bland).
Regarding claim 9, Shi teaches a data processing device, comprising: an input interface configured to receive input data and extract, from the input data, raw data and information about a data structure according to which the raw data are structured (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3B, para [0023], para [0035-0036], discloses receive input data from a source database corresponding to type of reader plug-in that reads from the source database according to data meta structure for the source database selected in a DataX frame), wherein the data structure contains a plurality of data types specified by the information (see Fig. 3B, para [0022-0023], discloses DataX frame containing different types of databases, such as SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL and Oracle); a generator configured to, for at least one data type used by the data structure: select a source code generation plugin, assigned to the data type, from a plurality of source code generation plugins (see para [0021-0022], para [0035-0036], discloses SlaveContainer loading respective corresponding type of reader plug-in according to the type of source database from a DataX frame containing conversions rules between different types of databases, such as SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL have various reader plug-ins for specific data collection purposes and the reader plug-ins can be considered source code plug-ins), generate, using the selected source code generation plugin, conversion source code for converting the data type to a target format (see Fig. 1, para [0022-0023], para [0035-0036], discloses converting source data into to-be-synchronized data matching data meta format of a target database using reader plug-in).
Shi does not explicitly teach combine the conversion source code for converting the data type to the target format to form conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, and generate, by means of compilation using the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format; and a converter configured to execute the conversion plugin to convert the raw data to the target format.
Bland teaches combine the conversion source code for converting the data type to the target format to form conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format (see Figs. 2A-2B, para [0034], discloses plugin reading through a SKETCH file, converting hierarchical data structure to a flat format understood by EXCEL), and generate, by means of compilation using the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format (see Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034-0035], para [0037], para [0040], discloses plugin for transforming content of a SKETCH file to a spreadsheet file, the plugin accepting an updated EXCEL file changes and copy changes back to original positions within the SKETCH document is the compilation using source code); and a converter configured to execute the conversion plugin to convert the raw data to the target format (see Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034, 0037], discloses plugin converting hierarchical data structure to a flat format).
Shi/Bland are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi to combine the conversion source code from disclosure of Bland. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Bland as “develop workflow automation tools to simplify, speed up and streamline various design processes” (para [0002]) and combining the conversion source code are well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 14, Shi teaches a method for converting data, comprising the following steps: receiving input data; extracting, from the input data, raw data and information about a data structure according to which the raw data are structured (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3B, para [0023], para [0035-0036], discloses receive input data from a source database corresponding to type of reader plug-in that reads from the source database according to data meta structure for the source database selected in a DataX frame), wherein the data structure contains a plurality of data types specified by the information (see Fig. 3B, para [0022-0023], discloses DataX frame containing different types of databases, such as SQL server and Oracle); for at least one data type used by the data structure, selecting a source code generation plugin, assigned to the data type, from a plurality of source code generation plugins (see para [0021-0022], para [0035-0036], discloses SlaveContainer loading respective corresponding type of reader plug-in according to the type of source database from a DataX frame containing conversions rules between different types of databases, such as SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL have various reader plug-ins for specific data collection purposes and the reader plug-ins can be considered source code plug-ins); generating, using the selected source code generation plugin, conversion source code for converting the data type to a target format (see Fig. 1, para [0022-0023], para [0035-0036], discloses converting source data into to-be-synchronized data matching data meta format of a target database using reader plug-in).
Shi does not explicitly teach combining the conversion source code for converting the data type to the target format to form conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, and generating, using compilation of the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format; and executing the conversion plugin to convert the raw data to the target format.
Bland teaches combining the conversion source code for converting the data type to the target format to form conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format (see Figs. 2A-2B, para [0034], discloses plugin reading through a SKETCH file, converting hierarchical data structure to a flat format understood by EXCEL), and generating, using compilation of the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format (see Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034-0035], para [0037], para [0040], discloses plugin for transforming content of a SKETCH file to a spreadsheet file, the plugin accepting an updated EXCEL file changes and copy changes back to original positions within the SKETCH document is the compilation using source code); and executing the conversion plugin to convert the raw data to the target format (see Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034, 0037], discloses plugin converting hierarchical data structure to a flat format).
Shi/Bland are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi to combine the conversion source code from disclosure of Bland. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Bland as “develop workflow automation tools to simplify, speed up and streamline various design processes” (para [0002]) and combining the conversion source code are well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 15, Shi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program including instructions for converting data, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors (see para [0171], discloses processor and medium), causing the one or more processors to perform the following steps: receiving input data; extracting, from the input data, raw data and information about a data structure according to which the raw data are structured (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3B, para [0023], para [0035-0036], discloses receive input data from a source database corresponding to type of reader plug-in that reads from the source database according to data meta structure for the source database selected in a DataX frame), wherein the data structure contains a plurality of data types specified by the information(see Fig. 3B, para [0022-0023], discloses DataX frame containing different types of databases, such as SQL server and Oracle); for at least one data type used by the data structure, selecting a source code generation plugin, assigned to the data type, from a plurality of source code generation plugins (see para [0021-0022], para [0035-0036], discloses SlaveContainer loading respective corresponding type of reader plug-in according to the type of source database from a DataX frame containing conversions rules between different types of databases, such as SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL have various reader plug-ins for specific data collection purposes and the reader plug-ins can be considered source code plug-ins); generating, using the selected source code generation plugin, conversion source code for converting the data type to a target format (see Fig. 1, para [0022-0023], para [0035-0036], discloses converting source data into to-be-synchronized data matching data meta format of a target database using reader plug-in).
Shi does not explicitly teach combining the conversion source code for converting the data type to the target format to form conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, and generating, using compilation of the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format; and executing the conversion plugin to convert the raw data to the target format.
Bland teaches combining the conversion source code for converting the data type to the target format to form conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format (see Figs. 2A-2B, para [0034], discloses plugin reading through a SKETCH file, converting hierarchical data structure to a flat format understood by EXCEL), and generating, using compilation of the conversion source code for converting the data structure to the target format, a conversion plugin for converting the data structure to the target format (see Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034-0035], para [0037], para [0040], discloses plugin for transforming content of a SKETCH file to a spreadsheet file, the plugin accepting an updated EXCEL file changes and copy changes back to original positions within the SKETCH document is the compilation using source code); and executing the conversion plugin to convert the raw data to the target format (see Figs. 3A-3B, para [0034, 0037], discloses plugin converting hierarchical data structure to a flat format).
Shi/Bland are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi to combine the conversion source code from disclosure of Bland. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Bland as “develop workflow automation tools to simplify, speed up and streamline various design processes” (para [0002]) and combining the conversion source code are well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2018/0210937) (hereinafter Shi) in view of Bland et al. (US 2020/0394152) (hereinafter Bland) as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Wasson (US 2014/0039878) (hereinafter Wasson).
Regarding claim 10, Shi/Bland teach a device of claim 9.
Shi/Bland do not explicitly teach wherein the information about the data structure specifies a syntax tree of the data structure.
Wasson teaches wherein the information about the data structure specifies a syntax tree of the data structure (see para [0019], para [0036], discloses syntax tree assembled into a natural language string used by text-to-speech).
Shi/Bland/Wasson are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi/Bland to utilize syntax tree from disclosure of Wasson. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Wasson as “it is advantageous to convert mathematical expressions that are expressed using mathematical conventions into natural language” (para [0003]) and utilizing syntax tree is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2018/0210937) (hereinafter Shi) in view of Bland et al. (US 2020/0394152) (hereinafter Bland) as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Sato (US 2022/0311898) (hereinafter Sato).
Regarding claim 11, Shi/Bland teach a device of claim 9.
Shi/Bland do not explicitly teach wherein the input data for each data structure of a plurality of data structures contain raw data structured according to the data structure, and the generator is configured to generate a corresponding conversion plugin for each data structure, and the converter is configured to ascertain, for extracted raw data, according to which data structure they are structured and to execute the corresponding conversion plugin and thus to convert the raw data to the target format.
Sato teaches wherein the input data for each data structure of a plurality of data structures contain raw data structured according to the data structure (see Figs. 2-3, Fig. 8, para [0055, 0057], discloses input data for each respective user with Flow ID and ordered plug-in in association with respective input data), and the generator is configured to generate a corresponding conversion plugin for each data structure (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4, para [0058-0059], para [0063-0064], discloses generating plug-in for each document for converting a predetermined format to another format), and the converter is configured to ascertain, for extracted raw data, according to which data structure they are structured and to execute the corresponding conversion plugin and thus to convert the raw data to the target format (see Fig. 4, para [0063-0064], discloses converting format of document from JPEG to TIFF and transmits the document converted to TIFF to the designated external service).
Shi/Bland/Sato are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi/Bland to include a plurality of data structures containing raw data from disclosure of Sato. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Sato as “providing an information processing system capable of appropriately determining whether a process already performed on a document can be performed on the document” (para [0006]) and including a plurality of data structures containing raw data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 12, Shi/Bland teach a device of claim 9.
Shi/Bland do not explicitly teach wherein the generator is configured to assign a hash value to each conversion plugin, and wherein the converter is configured to ascertain and execute a conversion plugin for converting raw data structured according to one of the data structures, by forming a hash value of a syntax tree of the data structure and selecting the conversion plugin to which the formed hash value is assigned.
Sato teaches wherein the generator is configured to assign a hash value to each conversion plugin (see Figs. 2-3, Fig. 8, para [0081], discloses a hash value as a feature of a document input to a plug-in), and wherein the converter is configured to ascertain and execute a conversion plugin for converting raw data structured according to one of the data structures, by forming a hash value of a syntax tree of the data structure and selecting the conversion plugin to which the formed hash value is assigned (see Fig. 4, Fig. 8, para [0063-0064], para [0206], discloses hash value for transmission plug-in to process to transmission destination).
Shi/Bland/Sato are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi/Bland to include a plurality of data structures containing raw data from disclosure of Sato. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Sato as “providing an information processing system capable of appropriately determining whether a process already performed on a document can be performed on the document” (para [0006]) and including a plurality of data structures containing raw data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2018/0210937) (hereinafter Shi) in view of Bland et al. (US 2020/0394152) (hereinafter Bland) as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Block et al. (US 10,984,013) (hereinafter Block).
Regarding claim 13, Shi/Bland teach a device of claim 9.
Shi/Bland do not explicitly teach wherein the raw data are: (i) measurement data, which are provided by a robot mechanism, and/or (ii) log data of an execution of a program on a robot mechanism.
Block teaches wherein the raw data are: (i) measurement data, which are provided by a robot mechanism, and/or (ii) log data of an execution of a program on a robot mechanism (see Fig. 20, col. 40 ln 45-54, discloses an event collector (robot mechanism) embedding raw machine data in logging libraries).
Shi/Bland/Block are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shi/Bland to include a robot mechanism from disclosure of Block. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Block as “provide greater flexibility because it enables an analyst to search all of the machine data” (col. 4 ln 6-7) and including a plurality of data structures containing raw data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159