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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 11-17, filed 06/20/2025, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 23, filed 06/20/2025, with respect to 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claims 1-7 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2026 and 04/06/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, 15-16 and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1/8/16: “…within databases associated with the transactions systems” should read “…within databases associated with the one or more transactions systems”.
Claim 1/8/16: ”…converting the data into a schema” should read “…converting the captured data into a schema…”
Claim 1/8/16: “…within the Global Data Lake in response…” should read “…within a Global data lake in response…”
Claim 1/8/16: “…a data layer of the real time data mesh” should read “…a data layer of the RTDM…”
Claim 1/8/16: “…wherein the data layer includes a Global Data Lake” should read “…wherein the data layer includes the Global Data Lake”
Claim 3/7/9/15/20: “real time data mesh” should read “RTDM”.
Claim 10: “…communication between the components.” Should read “…communication between components.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “data governance module” in claim 9.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 8 and 16 recite “dynamically allocating a plurality of Purposive Datastores (PDSes) within the Global Data Lake in response to real-time data demands, wherein each PDS is optimized for storing and retrieving specific categories of data, and wherein the allocation is based on data type, volume, and processing requirements to ensure efficient data management and scalability within the Real- Time Data Mesh (RTDM)”. The bolded limitations introduce new matter into the claim. A review of the specification reveals that the PDSes are fixed, pre-configured and assigned to specific data categories at design time. There is no description anywhere in the specification of a dynamic allocation mechanism (i.e. no algorithm, no decision logic and no runtime trigger) that allocates the PDSes in response to real time demands and based on volume and processing requirements.
Claim 1, 8 and 16 disclose “wherein the processing includes filtering, deduplication, and application of timestamping to maintain data integrity and order”. The limitation is new matter. The specification discloses only “data cleansing, normalization and enrichment techniques ”. The specific trio of filtering, deduplication and timestamping is not disclosed as a combination in any paragraph o the specification. While deduplication is mentioned generally in the context of CDC, and filtering can arguably be assumed within “data cleansing”, timestamping is not described at all as part of the CDC processing pipeline in the specification.
Claims 1, 8, 16 disclose “outputting, by the Global data lake, information based…” The specification characterizes the Global Data lake as a storage infrastructure. Output to users is described as occurring through the SPoG UI and not the global data lake itself. Attributing the output function to the Global data lake in the claim is unsupported by the specification. Thus, the limitation is new matter.
Claims 1, 8 and 16 disclose “by enabling concurrent query execution across PDSes, allowing for immediate decision-making based on up-to-date data”. The bolded and underlined limitation is new matter. The specification closest disclosure is paragraph 117 which describes leveraging “apache Spark or Apache Flink” to “enable parallel processing and distributed computing across large scale datasets” parallel processing using Spark/Flink is a distributed data processing paradigm, not specifically “concurrent query execution across PDSes” The specification never uses the phrase “concurrent query execution” never describes a query federation architecture, and never describes how simultaneous queries are dispatched to and resolved across multiple PDSes. A person of ordinary skill in the art could not implement “concurrent query execution across PDSes” from the specification disclosure alone. Therefore, the limitation is new matter.
Claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are also rejected under 112a for failing to cure the deficiencies above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a system for change data capture in an ERP agnostic…comprising: (a) monitoring…(b) capturing and processing…(c) transforming…(d) harmonizing…(e) dynamically allocating…(f) integrating…(g) outputting...” The claim recites a system but recites the method limitations which renders the claim a hybrid claim. Thus, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one makes or sells the system or when one actually performs the recited steps. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to recite “…comprising: one or more computers comprising one or more processors and a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the steps of:…”
Claims 9-15 are also rejected under 112b for failing to cure the deficiency above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claims 4 and 17 are redundant and do not further limit what has already been claimed in the independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418).
As per claim 1/8/16, Makhija discloses A computerized method for change data capture in an ERP agnostic real-time data mesh, comprising:
(a) monitoring one or more transactional systems, the one or more transactional systems comprising at least one Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, for real-time changes, wherein the monitoring includes detecting modifications to data fields within databases associated with the transactional systems (paragraph 42-43),
(c) transforming the captured data into a standardized format that is compatible with subsequent analysis and integration processes, wherein the transforming includes converting the data into a schema that supports cross-system data consistency and interoperation within a real- time data mesh environment (paragraph 38, 42, 46, 66, 93);
(g) outputting, by the Global Data Lake, information based on the harmonized data to be disseminated to a user of the one or more transactional systems. (paragraph 52, 61).
However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses (e) dynamically allocating a plurality of Purposive Datastores (PDSes) within the Global Data Lake in response to real-time data demands, wherein each PDS is optimized for storing and retrieving specific categories of data, and wherein the allocation is based on data type, volume, and processing requirements to ensure efficient data management and scalability within the Real- Time Data Mesh (RTDM); (paragraph 12, 18, 37, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66);
(f) integrating the harmonized data into a data layer of the real-time data mesh, wherein the data layer includes a Global Data Lake comprising the plurality of PDSes, the Global Data Lake being configured to support real-time data access and analytics by enabling concurrent query execution across PDSes, allowing for immediate decision-making based on up-to-date data; (paragraph 32, 49, 82, 87, 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hadar in the teaching of Makhija, in order to create a supply chain of data and analytics within an enterprise(please see Hadar paragraph 9).
However, Makhija does not disclose but Vasudevan discloses
(b) capturing and processing the detected changes to the data fields using at least one change data capture mechanism selected from the group consisting of:
(i) a log-based change tracking process that captures transactional updates from system-generated logs, enabling continuous synchronization without modifying primary data structures (paragraph 6, 26, 28 and 35);
(ii) a trigger-based event detection mechanism that intercepts real-time data modifications at a source database level; and
(iii) a polling-based retrieval mechanism that periodically queries data sources to detect updates in environments where event-driven approaches are not feasible;
wherein the processing includes filtering, deduplication, and application of timestamping to maintain data integrity and order (paragraph 39, 81-82);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations as taught by Vasudevan in the teaching of Makhija, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Makhija discloses wherein the transofmraiton and harmonization of the captured data involve data cleansing, normalization, and enrichment techniques to ensure data quality and consistency (paragraph 38, 42, 46 and 101).
As per claim 3, Makhija discloses wherein the data layer includes the Global Data Lake configured as a scalable and fault tolerant storage infrastructure, providing a central repository for the captured and transformed data within the real time data lake (paragraph 9-10, 35, 46-48, the data lake comprises a plurality of relational and non-relational databases which Examiner interprets as scalable and fault tolerant.). However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses a data mesh (paragraph 37, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4/17, Makhija discloses implementing change data capture using one or more trigger based, machine learning and/or polling based CDC algorithms (paragraph 12, 53 and 76).
As per claim 5/18, Makhija discloses wherein the data layer comprises the Purposive Datastores (PDSes) optimized for efficient retrieval and storage of specific types of data (paragraph 10 and 47).
As per claim 6/19, Makhija discloses storing the transformed and harmonized data in a cloud-based storage infrastructure (paragraph 77).
As per claim 7/20, Makhija discloses applying artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models to enhance the change data capture process, facilitating automated analysis, and decision making the real time data lake (paragraph 9, 47, 60, 78 and 93). However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses that a data mesh (paragraph 37, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 9, Makhija discloses a Data Governance Module for ensuring data integrity, security, and compliance within the real-time data lake (paragraph 42, 46, 54, 64, 67) However, Makhija does not disclose but Hadar discloses a real time data mesh (paragraph 7, 42, 49, 59, 62, 66)(please see claim 8 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 13, Makhija discloses wherein the data layer comprises the Purposive Datastores (PDSes) optimized for efficient retrieval and storage of specific types of data relevant to the supply chain domain (paragraph 10, 47 and 93).
As per claim 14, Makhija discloses a cloud-based storage infrastructure for storing the transformed and harmonized data (paragraph 77).
As per claim 15, Makhija discloses artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models used to enhance the change data capture process, enabling automated analysis and decision-making within the real-time data mesh (paragraph 9, 47, 60, 78 and 93).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Grunenberger (US 2015/0189014).
As per claim 10, Makhija discloses wherein the cloud engines are connected to the data layer through API Connectivity, enabling integration and communication between the components (paragraph 52, 54, 64, 90). However, Makhija does not disclose but Grunenberger discloses that the engines are headless engines (paragraph 31 and 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Grunenberger in the teaching of makhija, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Gangadarappa (US 2021/0350429), hereinafter “Gang”.
As per claim 11, Makhija does not disclose but Gang discloses wherein the System of Records integrates with external enterprise systems, including ERPs, for data exchange and synchronization (paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Gang in the teaching of Makhija, in order to obtain additional information and/or instructions (please see Gang, paragraph 37).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija (US 2020/0279200) in view of Hadar (US 2023/0067777) and Vasudevan (US 2019/0102418), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Ballaro (US 2023/0419387) and Hastman (US 2014/0279254)
As per claim 12, Makhija discloses a data governance module (paragraph 54). However, Makhija does not disclose but Ballaro discloses wherein the Data Governance Module includes functionalities for catalog management, order status and tracking (OST) management, special pricing management, and quote management (158-159, 160, 170, 694 and 781).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Ballaro in the teaching of Makhija, in order to provide an efficient and simple procurement process that is easily customizable for multiple organizations and multiple vendors with simple and complex business terms, and can also provide a single point-of-access for both businesses and consumers to interface, interact, and implement and execute transactions, in accordance with existing or newly defined relationships, using a custom and configurable methodology for realizing their requirements (please see Ballaro paragraph 16).
However, Makhija in view of Ballaro does not disclose but Hastman discloses Pimcore-based product data management (paragraph 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hastman in the teaching of Makhija in view of Ballaro, in order to automatically enables communications service providers to define and configure products and/or services and subsequently offer such products and/or services to customers in near real-time (please see Hastman abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights