Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. This office action has been issued in response to amendment filed 10/13/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicants’ arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered in light of the instant amendment as they relate to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 as will be discussed below. Accordingly, this action has been made final.
(1) (Independent claims 1, 19 and 20) Applicants argue that Joshi et al, US 20160070920, does not disclose, “ingesting, at a computer system, environmental data received from a plurality of disparate data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of disparate data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats; transforming, at the computer system, the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is in a standardized format capable of direct comparison and analysis; and storing, at the computer system, the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform searches on the transformed environmental data.”.
(2) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Environmental data (According to Google): “Environmental data is information that describes the state of the natural world and the human impact on it. This includes measurements, observations, and records related to air quality, water, soil, temperature, biodiversity, and weather patterns. It is used to understand environmental conditions, monitor changes, assess impacts, and inform decisions for conservation and protection efforts.”
Abstract in Joshi et al and paragraphs 81 and 98 indicate, “A sensor mechanism in an environmental monitoring device provides sensor data that represents an environmental condition in an external environment that includes the environmental monitoring device. Then, a control mechanism in the environmental monitoring device generates subsets of the sensor data based on data privileges of different entities, where the data privileges of at least some of the entities are different from each other, and at least some of the corresponding subsets of the sensor data are different. For example, the data privileges may specify: different spatial extents in the external environment monitored by the sensor mechanism; and/or different types of information associated with the external environment”, i.e., extracting environmental data from various sensors with different data types or data format (“different types of information associated with the external environment”).
Paragraph 117 suggests, “applying another transformation, converting data from one format to another, calculating statistics (such as moments of a distribution), performing supervised learning (such as Bayesian analysis), performing noise reduction, normalizing the sensor data, scaling the sensor data, partitioning the sensor data, aggregating or compiling the sensor data, converting units, etc”, i.e., transforming or converting different data into a consistent data format.
(2) The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
(3) Dependent claim 7. Please see the 103 rejection of Joshi et al (US 20160070920), in view of Eronen et al (US 20180210206), paragraph 89, for adding some new data and removing some old data. The consolidation of incoming new data and the comparison of such data against stored data is considered as reconciling the environmental data from the plurality of data sources against the transformed environmental data of the database.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" ranted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,890. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application 18740376
Patent US 12,038,890
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the method comprising:
ingesting, at a computer system, environmental data received from a plurality of disparate data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of disparate data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats;
transforming, at the computer system, the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is in a standardized format capable of direct comparison and analysis; and
storing, at the computer system, the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform searches on the transformed environmental data.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the method comprising:
receiving environmental data from a plurality of data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats;
transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is in a standardized format capable of direct comparison and analysis, wherein the transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into the consistent data format comprises:
for an instance of the environmental data: inspecting the instance of the environmental data to determine a data type;
identifying a data type of the instance of the environmental data; identifying a data transformation type to apply to the instance of the environmental data based at least in part on the data type of the instance of the environmental data; and
transforming the instance of the environmental data according to the data transformation type to generate an instance of transformed environmental data; and
aggregating the transformed environmental data; and storing the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform searches on the transformed environmental data.
Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code stored thereon for causing a computer system to perform a method for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the method comprising:
ingesting environmental data received from a plurality of disparate data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of disparate data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats;
transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is standardized form capable of direct comparison and analysis; and
storing the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform search on the transformed environmental data.
Claim 16:
A computer-implemented method for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the method comprising:
receiving environmental data from a plurality of data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats;
transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is in a standardized format capable of direct comparison and analysis, wherein the transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into the consistent data format comprises: for an instance of the environmental data:
inspecting the instance of the environmental data to determine a data type;
identifying a data type of the instance of the environmental data;
identifying a data transformation type to apply to the instance of the environmental data based at least in part on the data type of the instance of the environmental data; and transforming the instance of the environmental data according to the data transformation type to generate an instance of transformed environmental data, wherein the transforming the instance of the environmental data according to the data transformation type to generate the instance of transformed environmental data comprises at least one of:
renaming object keys; changing geospatial projections; and
transforming GeoJSON results into a standardized JSON format; and storing the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform searches on the transformed environmental data.
Claim 20:
A system for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the system comprising:
a memory device; and
a hardware processor coupled with memory device, the hardware processor configured to:
ingest environmental data received from a plurality of disparate data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of disparate data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats;
transform the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is standardized form capable of direct comparison and analysis; and store the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform search on the transformed environmental data.
Claim 17:
A computer-implemented method for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the method comprising:
receiving environmental data from a plurality of data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats;
transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is in a standardized format capable of direct comparison and analysis;
storing the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform searches on the transformed environmental data; and performing an area-based scoring operation on the transformed environmental data, wherein the area-based scoring operation generates an area-based risk score representative of geographic-based relative risk associated with a particular hazard, wherein the performing an area-based scoring operation on the transformed environmental data comprises: appending a location with an area-based data set of the transformed environmental data; and
determining the area-based risk score according to the area-based data set of the transformed environmental data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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-AJA 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 statu
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joshi et al (US 20160070920).
Claim 1:
Joshi suggests a computer-implemented method for transformation of inconsistent environmental data, the method comprising: ingesting, at a computer system, environmental data received from a plurality of disparate data sources, wherein each data source of the plurality of disparate data sources is associated with a geographic region and maintains the environmental data using at least one data format of a plurality of disparate data formats, such that the environmental data is received in the plurality of disparate data formats [Paragraphs 63, S1, 92, 114 and 117 (Receiving or extracting sensor data from various locations. Each sensor data can be associated with a data format)]. Joshi suggests transforming, at the computer system, the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into a consistent data format, such that the transformed environmental data is in a standardized format capable of direct comparison and analysis [Paragraphs 98 and 117 (Transforming or normalizing sensor data)]. Joshi suggests storing, at the computer system, the transformed environmental data in a database configured to receive and perform searches on the transformed environmental data [Paragraphs 98, 114 and 117 (Transforming, normalizing and storing transformed sensor data)].
Claim 2:
Joshi suggests wherein the transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into the consistent data format comprises: for an instance of the environmental data: inspecting the instance of the environmental data to determine a data type; identifying a data type of the instance of the environmental data; and identifying a data transformation type to apply to the instance of the environmental data based at least in part on the data type of the instance of the environmental data [Paragraphs 98, 114 and 117 (Transforming, normalizing sensor data)].
Claim 3:
Joshi suggests wherein the transforming the environmental data from the plurality of disparate data formats into the consistent data format further comprises: for the instance of the environmental data: transforming the instance of the environmental data according to the data transformation type to generate an instance of transformed environmental data [Paragraphs 98, 114 and 117 (Transforming, normalizing sensor data)].
Claim 6:
Joshi suggests wherein the transformed environmental data is standardized form capable of direct comparison and analysis across a plurality of geographic regions [Paragraphs 98, 114 and 117 (Transforming, normalizing sensor data)].
Claim 8:
Joshi suggests performing, at the computer system, an area-based scoring operation on the transformed environmental data, wherein the area-based scoring operation generates an area- based risk score representative of geographic-based relative risk associated with a particular hazard [Paragraphs 98, 114 and 117 (Risk calculation)].
Claim 12:
Joshi suggests receiving, at the computer system, a search input for searching the database comprising the transformed environmental data, the search input comprising a search location; identifying, at the computer system, a search type of the search input based at least in part on the search location; converting, at the computer system, the search input to a search query to be run against the database comprising the transformed environmental data; and forwarding, at the computer system, the search query to the database comprising the transformed environmental data for execution [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data )].
Claim 13:
Joshi suggests wherein the search location is an area, such that the search type is an area search [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data)].
Claim 14:
Joshi suggests the converting, at the computer system, the search input to a search query to be run against the database comprising the transformed environmental data comprising: converting search input to the search query for an area search [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data)].
Claim 15:
Joshi suggests wherein the search location is a point such that the search type is a point search [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data, including searching based on keyword or point search)].
Claim 16:
Joshi suggests the converting, at the computer system, the search input to a search query to be run against the database comprising the transformed environmental data comprising: converting search input to the search query fora point search [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data, including searching based on keyword or point search)].
Claim 17:
Joshi suggests executing, at the computer system, the search query at the database comprising the transformed environmental data, wherein search results of the search query comprise transformed environmental data relevant to the search location; and generating, at the computer system, a report comprising the search results [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data. Search result generation is considered as generating the search report)].
Claim 18:
Joshi suggests wherein the search input further comprises at least one weight fora category of the transformed environmental data, wherein the executing the search query at the database comprising the transformed environmental data comprises: accounting for the at least one weight for the category of the transformed environmental data during the executing, such that the search results reflect the at least one weight for the category of the transformed environmental data [Paragraph 138 (Allowing search of environmental sensor data. Search result generation is considered as generating the search report. Searching using a search engine means that the search algorithms take topic weights into account)].
Claim 19:
Claims 19 is essentially the same as claim | except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above. Claim 20:
Claims 20 is essentially the same as claim | except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (oras subject to pre-AJA 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al (US 20160070920), in view of Eronen et al (US 20180210206).
Claim 7:
The combined teachings of Joshi and Eronen suggest reconciling, at the computer system, the environmental data from the plurality of data sources against the transformed environmental data of the database to determine whether the environmental data includes new data; and provided the environmental data does not include new data, discarding the environmental data [Eronen: Paragraph 89 (Adding some new data and removing some old data. The consolidation of incoming new data and the comparison of such data against stored data is considered as reconciling the environmental data from the plurality of data sources against the transformed environmental data of the database )].
Both references (Joshi and Eronen) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Joshi and Eronen before him/her, to modify the system of Joshi with the teaching of Eronen in order to management data [Eronen: Paragraph 89].
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 4-5 and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. 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 filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [Hung D. Le], whose telephone number is [571-270-1404]. The examiner can normally be communicated on [Monday to Friday: 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on [571-272-4080]. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, contact [800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000].
Hung Le
12/02/2025
/HUNG D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161