DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-21 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-21 are rejected.
The instant application is a CON of 17/060,523 filed on 10/01/2020.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 has been entered.
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, 4-11, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (All Claims)
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1 and 4-10 are directed to a method, claims 11 and 14-20 are directed to a system comprising at least a processor and memory, claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1, 11, and 21)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are abstract ideas:
determining, that a schema definition corresponding to the first data type is unavailable in a dictionary database … associated with the server based on accessing schema definitions stored in the dictionary database and determining that the dictionary database does not store a schema definition of a schema corresponding to the first data type; is a step that can be performed as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper;
in response to the determining, generating, by the server during runtime, a new schema definition of a new logical schema that maps to the first data type, wherein the new schema definition was not previously known to the server; is a step that can be performed as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper;
updating the dictionary database to add a new data type during runtime based on storing an entry associated with the new schema definition in the dictionary database and indicating identities of the first data sources in association with the entry; is a step that can be performed as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper;
The above analysis applies to each independent claims as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claims 1, 11, and 21)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
receiving, by a server during runtime, a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server, the request including an indication of a first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
by the server, … stored in memory; is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application, the obtained data and the schema definition of the new logical schema. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 11, the following limitations are additional elements:
one or more processors; is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
memory storing instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
receiving, by a server during runtime, a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server, the request including an indication of a first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
by the server, … stored in memory; is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application, the obtained data and the schema definition of the new logical schema. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 21, the following limitations are additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
receiving, by a server during runtime, a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server, the request including an indication of a first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
by the server, … stored in memory; is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application, the obtained data and the schema definition of the new logical schema. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B (Claims 1, 11, and 21)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
receiving, by a server during runtime, a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server, the request including an indication of a first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
by the server, … stored in memory; ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application, the obtained data and the schema definition the new logical schema. when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Regarding claim 11, the following limitations are additional elements:
one or more processors; ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
memory storing instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
receiving, by a server during runtime, a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server, the request including an indication of a first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
by the server, … stored in memory; ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application, the obtained data and the schema definition the new logical schema. when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Regarding claim 21, the following limitations are additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
receiving, by a server during runtime, a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server, the request including an indication of a first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
by the server, … stored in memory; ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application, the obtained data and the schema definition the new logical schema. when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
The dependent claims 4-10 and 14-20 are directed to the same abstract ideas as their parent claims. The dependent claims further add elements such as further determining, accessing, receiving, and/or processing. These elements are similar to the above identified abstract ideas and additional elements. Therefore, claims 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariharasubrahmanian et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0311063 (hereinafter Hariharasubrahmanian) in view of Zhang et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0327252 (hereinafter Zhang) and Wittern et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0370370 (hereinafter Wittern).
Regarding claim 1, Hariharasubrahmanian teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a server during runtime (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0063], A service is assigned, at run-time, to a node in order to have the node host the service), a request from a client application for a change in data type of real-time data updates requested from the server (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0063], A client request to establish a session may specify a service, A service is assigned, at run-time, to a node in order to have the node host the service), the request including an indication of a first data type (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0004], if the load is for a CSV file, the process extracts the field values based on comma separation, transforms each data entry into the corresponding type (e.g., removing leading zeros and typecasting into an integer) and loads into logical container (e.g., data blocks), which can be processed by the query engine);
updating the dictionary database to add a new data type during runtime based on storing an entry associated with the new schema definition in the dictionary database and indicating identifies of the first data sources in association with the entry (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0063], A client request to establish a session may specify a service, A service is assigned, at run-time, to a node in order to have the node host the service, Paragraph [0003], the query may specify a data source, such as a data file, and a database object, such as a table, LOB, BLOB, which is to be selected or updated);
obtaining, by the server from the first data sources, data corresponding to the first data type (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0004], if the load is for a CSV file, the process extracts the field values based on comma separation, transforms each data entry into the corresponding type (e.g., removing leading zeros and typecasting into an integer) and loads into logical container (e.g., data blocks), which can be processed by the query engine); and
forwarding, by the server to a front-end application interface associated with the client application (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0070], The GUI 415 also serves to display the results of operation from the OS 410 and application(s) 402, whereupon the user may supply additional inputs or terminate the session), the obtained data and the schema definition of the new logical schema (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0016], The query engine is aware of the requested query schema, such as the external table definition, and further becomes aware of the earlier ingested target data when the external data source was read).
Hariharasubrahmanian does not expressly disclose:
in response to the determining, generating, by the server during runtime, a new schema definition of a new logical schema that maps to the first data type, wherein the new schema definition was not previously known to the server;
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type;
However, Zhang teaches:
in response to the determining, generating, by the server during runtime, a new schema definition of a new logical schema that maps to the first data type (Zhang Paragraph [0090], The value of each feature fi, e.g., number of output, in the resulting CPU cost function is a postpori value. In other words, the value of each feature is not known before the query is executed. Therefore, the value of each feature is estimated using statistics (such as a synopsis described previously) that were gathered on the XML data against which the database statement is executed. These values are then input to the CPU cost function, which generates an estimated CPU cost of the corresponding streaming operator), wherein the new schema definition was not previously known to the server (Zhang Paragraph [0019], XML data is "unknown-schema" XML if the database server does not know the schema to which the XML data conforms. Thus, unknown-schema XML includes both (a) XML documents that do not conform to any schema and (b) XML documents that conform to an XML schema, but the XML schema is not known to the database server);
executing queries of one or more data sources for identifying first ones of the data sources that store data of the requested first data type (Zhang Paragraph [0095], Thus, in executing Query Example 1, an estimated number of elements to be inserted into the element stack for path expression `/bib/book` is the sum of the number of `bib` elements and the number of `book` elements, which is 1+200=201 according to Synopsis Example 1);
The claimed invention and Zhang are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang. Zhang teaches the benefits of estimating the cost of executing an XML query with XML streaming operators (Paragraph 42).
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang does not expressly disclose:
determining, by the server, that a schema definition corresponding to the first data type is unavailable in a dictionary database stored in memory associated with the server based on accessing schema definitions stored in the dictionary database and determining that the dictionary database does not store a schema definition of a schema corresponding to the first data type;
However, Wittern teaches:
determining, by the server, that a schema definition corresponding to the first data type is unavailable in a dictionary database stored in memory associated with the server based on accessing schema definitions stored in the dictionary database and determining that the dictionary database does not store a schema definition of a schema corresponding to the first data type (Wittern Paragraph [0035], the pre-processing component 114 only adds a new OAS schema object to the types dictionary 124 if a deep comparison attests that the new schema object is unique, Paragraph [0117], “database,” and substantially any other information storage component relevant to operation and functionality of a component are utilized to refer to “memory components,” entities embodied in a “memory,” or components including a memory (Hariharasubrahmanian teaches the dictionary database));
The claimed invention and Wittern are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern. Wittern teaches the improvement of autonomously generating a schema for one or more graph query language wrappers that can translate one or more queries to one or more requests (Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request from the client application comprises:
receiving one or more keywords corresponding to the client application (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0046], The DBMS may determine the relationship between the external field and the query columns based on the query statement (such as a DDL statement) that specifies the query schema, Paragraph [0063], A client request to establish a session may specify a service); and
generating, from the one or more keywords using a query generator, the request for data of the first data type (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0046], The DBMS may determine the relationship between the external field and the query columns based on the query statement (such as a DDL statement) that specifies the query schema).
Claims 11, 20, and 21 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1 and 10 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method, system, computer-readable media). Hariharasubrahmanian further teaches a hardware processor and memory (Paragraph 75).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Erickson et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0170834 (hereinafter Erickson).
Regarding claim 4, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern teaches parent claim 1.
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern does not expressly disclose:
further comprising: receiving a second request to access the dictionary database; and
in response to receiving the second request, enabling access to the dictionary database using a graphical schema visualization tool.
However, Erickson teaches:
further comprising: receiving a second request to access the dictionary database (Erickson Paragraph [0080], query may be received that requests values or properties which are not currently present in the Data Dictionary schema. The system may then update the Data Dictionary schema so that it contains the requested values or properties); and
in response to receiving the second request, enabling access to the dictionary database using a graphical schema visualization tool (Erickson Paragraph [0077], Data Dictionary schema, a future user may make an initial request to the system to obtain the Data Dictionary schema and then be notified of the availability of the custom properties along with the default properties).
The claimed invention and Erickson are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Erickson to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Erickson. Erickson teaches the improvement of increasing the efficiency of event retrieval by limiting the memory writes to the data that is necessary to respond to the query (Paragraph 58).
Claim 14 is rejected in the same manner as claim 4 but is merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method and system).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner, Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279747 (hereinafter Strassner).
Regarding claim 5, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern teaches parent claim 1.
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang and Wittern does not expressly disclose:
receiving a second request from a second client application, the second request indicating a second schema;
in response to receiving the second request, determining using, a schema definition stored in the data dictionary, a second data type that maps to the second schema;
obtaining, from one or more second data sources, second data corresponding to the second data type; and
forwarding the second data to the second client application.
However, Strassner teaches:
receiving a second request from a second client application (Strassner Paragraph [0091], Replies to the query or queries may come back through the same management interface of second entity 160 that the requests were received), the second request indicating a second schema (Strassner Paragraph [0230], the collected data may be in a form compliant with a first internal schema, but not compliant with a second schema that is specified by the requester of the data collection process);
in response to receiving the second request, determining using, a schema definition stored in the data dictionary, a second data type that maps to the second schema (Strassner Paragraph [0308], A transformation determining unit 844 is configured to determine a transformation(s) to be used to transform the collected data from the first schema to the second schema);
obtaining, from one or more second data sources, second data corresponding to the second data type (Strassner Paragraph [0308], A data transformer 840 is configured to transform collected data in a first schema into a format compatible with a second schema); and
forwarding the second data to the second client application (Strassner Paragraph [0245], The management entity may obtain from the dependency list types of protocol (block 715) that can transmit and receive the set of types of data retrieved in block 707 without error by using a pop operation).
The claimed invention and Strassner are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner. Strassner teaches policy rules that allow for efficient and easy deployment of the communications systems (Paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 6, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein obtaining the second data corresponding to the second data type further comprises (Strassner Paragraph [0308], A data transformer 840 is configured to transform collected data in a first schema into a format compatible with a second schema):
determining a third data type associated with the second data (Strassner Paragraph [0289], then the metadata for all affected objects (i.e., any objects in the set of second objects (ADTs), any objects in the set of third objects);
obtaining, from one or more third data sources, third data corresponding to the third data type (Strassner Paragraph [0143], The management entity may store the mapping as part of each corresponding third data dictionary (i.e., the third data dictionary that had functional dependencies between the two ADTs being compared) if applicable);
adjusting one or more characteristics of at least one of the second data or the third data to enable display of the second data and the third data together (Strassner Paragraph [0268], The mapping between the at least one matched ADT in the set of second objects and the at least one model element in the information model (i.e., objects in the set of third objects) for this record is then written as metadata (block 911380)); and
forwarding, to the second client application, the third data in conjunction with the second data (Strassner Paragraph [0245], The management entity may obtain from the dependency list types of protocol (block 715) that can transmit and receive the set of types of data retrieved in block 707 without error by using a pop operation).
Claims 15-16 are rejected in the same manner as claims 5-6 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method and system).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Matsuo et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0117123 (hereinafter Matsuo).
Regarding claim 7, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern and Strassner teaches parent claim 5.
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner does not expressly disclose:
receiving the second request while obtaining the data corresponding to the first data type from the one or more data sources; and
processing the second request while obtaining the data corresponding to the first data type from the one or more data sources.
However, Matsuo teaches:
receiving the second request while obtaining the data corresponding to the first data type from the one or more data sources (Matsuo Paragraph [0004], first access request is being processed, the second processor will have to wait for its own access request to be processed until the processing of the first access request is completed); and
processing the second request while obtaining the data corresponding to the first data type from the one or more data sources (Matsuo Paragraph [0004], first access request is being processed, the second processor will have to wait for its own access request to be processed until the processing of the first access request is completed).
The claimed invention and Matsuo are from the analogous art of request systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Matsuo to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Matsuo. Matsuo teaches scheduling multiple access requests to a shared memory properly in order to improve the turnaround time and bus usage efficiency (Paragraph 30).
Claim 17 is rejected in the same manner as claim 7 but is merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method and system).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Bhattacharjee et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0089262 (hereinafter Bhattacharjee).
Regarding claim 8, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner teaches parent claim 5.
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second data type comprises real-time streaming data, and wherein obtaining the second data from the one or more second data sources comprises:
in response to determining the second data type that maps to the second schema, identifying the one or more second data sources corresponding to the second data type;
upon the identifying, receiving real-time streaming data from the one or more second data sources; and
forwarding the real-time streaming data to the second client application as the second data.
However, Bhattacharjee teaches:
wherein the second data type comprises real-time streaming data, and wherein obtaining the second data from the one or more second data sources comprises (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0220], A forwarder initially may receive the data as a raw data stream generated by the input source):
in response to determining the second data type that maps to the second schema, identifying the one or more second data sources corresponding to the second data type (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0194], input data sources and forwarders may be in a subscriber's private computing environment);
upon the identifying, receiving real-time streaming data from the one or more second data sources (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0220], A forwarder initially may receive the data as a raw data stream generated by the input source); and
forwarding the real-time streaming data to the second client application as the second data (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0220], A forwarder initially may receive the data as a raw data stream generated by the input source).
The claimed invention and Bhattacharjee are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Bhattacharjee to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Bhattacharjee. Bhattacharjee teaches the capabilities of some data intake and query systems remain isolated from a variety of data sources that could improve search results to provide new insights (Paragraph 132).
Regarding claim 9, Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner teaches parent claim 5.
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strassner further teaches:
forwarding the preconfigured batch data to the second client application as the second data (Hariharasubrahmanian Paragraph [0021], The client may transmit to the DBMS an SQL statement that defines the query schema for the external data source (Hariharasubrahmanian teaches the forwarding while Bhattacharjee teaches the batch data)).
Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, and Strasser does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second data type comprises batch data, and wherein obtaining the second data from the one or more second data sources comprises:
in response to determining the second data type that maps to the second schema, identifying the one or more second data sources corresponding to the second data type;
upon the identifying, fetching, from the one or more second data sources, preconfigured batch data using chunked data transfer; and
However, Bhattacharjee teaches:
wherein the second data type comprises batch data, and wherein obtaining the second data from the one or more second data sources comprises (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0510], worker nodes sort the newly timestamped partial search results and create chunks (e.g., micro-batches) upon completion of collecting all of the partial search results from the data sources):
in response to determining the second data type that maps to the second schema, identifying the one or more second data sources corresponding to the second data type (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0510], worker nodes sort the newly timestamped partial search results and create chunks (e.g., micro-batches) upon completion of collecting all of the partial search results from the data sources);
upon the identifying, fetching, from the one or more second data sources, preconfigured batch data using chunked data transfer (Bhattacharjee Paragraph [0510], worker nodes sort the newly timestamped partial search results and create chunks (e.g., micro-batches) upon completion of collecting all of the partial search results from the data sources); and
The claimed invention and Bhattacharjee are from the analogous art of schema systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Wittern, Strassner, and Bhattacharjee to have combined Hariharasubrahmanian in view of Zhang, Strassner, Wittern, and Bhattacharjee. Bhattacharjee teaches the capabilities of some data intake and query systems remain isolated from a variety of data sources that could improve search results to provide new insights (Paragraph 132).
Claims 18-19 are rejected in the same manner as claims 8-9 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method and system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered and they are either persuasive or they are not persuasive. A detailed explanation is provided below.
On pages 10-13, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the elements of amended claim 1 represent improvements to a computer implemented a database management system, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant further argues that the amended claims enable a computer to dynamically and efficiently process large volumes of user-requested data, the Examiner disagrees. It is not clear how this process is done efficiently when the claims have merely been amended to state that this process happens during runtime. Furthermore, merely processing large volumes of data does not show an improvement and does not add a meaningful limitation. Furthermore, the claimed improvement appears to be over the prior art of record rather than to the functioning of a computer or to any other technical field. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the amended claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant states that accessing schema definitions stored in a dictionary database in memory and generating a new schema definition of a logical schema that maps to a previously unknown/unused data type is not routine or conventional activity, the Examiner disagrees. As shown in the above 101 rejection, accessing stored information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as other applications have steps of storing and accessing stored information. It is not clear how generating a new schema for a previously unknown/unused data type is significantly more when any generation of a new schema could be considered generating a new schema for a previously unused data type. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-11, and 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment and the newly cited Hariharasubrahmanian reference. As shown above, Hariharasubrahmanian teaches a dictionary database and performing actions during runtime/real-time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zellweger, Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0371902 (hereinafter Zellweger). Zellweger teaches algorithms that include a data dictionary that controls access to a target database (Paragraph 31). This can be considered a dictionary database. Zellweger further teaches a database schema (Paragraph 42). Therefore, Zellweger is analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164