DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the claim amendment filed on08/06/2025.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent claims.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 are amended.
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
This Action has been made FINAL.
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 .
Continuity
This instant application is claimed continuation (CON.) of PCT/JP2022/004343 filed on 02/04/2022.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9-10, the claims recite amended limitation: “the record including a primary source table” in lines 5 and “generate an intermediate table with an item which is a result of changing a primary key of the primary source table to the intermediate table” in lines 6-8, which are not described/defined in the instant specification nor in the instant drawing (e.g., Figs. 27-28). Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected because of dependency to claim 1.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims encompass non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is a data migration device, but it comprises
“processing circuitry” in line 2 without specifying a proper/necessary physical articles or object(s) (e.g., a processor and/or a memory) to perform the steps in the claim as constituted a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101; hence, the “processing circuitry” is appeared as signal or software per se. As such, the claim fails to fall within a statutory category. Adding proper hardware, e.g., a processor and memory, in the claim would be overcome the issue (see Fig. 13, element 13; and the instant specification at paragraphs [0091-95]). Appropriated correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected because of dependency to claim 1.
Claims 1-10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites language of:
“extract a record from a migration source database in which node information managed in a target record and link information representing a link to another record are managed together in a same table, the record including a primary source table, the record being a record that is traceable based on the link information using origin data as a starting point, generate an intermediate table with an item which is a result of changing a primary key of the primary source table to the intermediate table, and write the record to an intermediate table;
read, from the intermediate table, the record, and separate data of the record into the node information and the link information; and
register the node information and the link information that have been separated in a migration destination database in which the node information and the link information are managed separately.”
a/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong I:
The steps of “extract a record from a migration source database…, generate an intermediate table with an item…”, “read,…, the extracted record, and separate data of the record…”, and “register the node information and the link information…”, as drafted, are mental processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in “mind” (e.g., an observation, evaluation, judgment, option, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s) (e.g., “processing circuitry”). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Part III.
(*** similar rejection are applied to limitations recite in claims 9-10, respectively).
b/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong II:
The remaining limitations in claims 1, and 9-10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For instance, the additional elements, e.g., “processing circuitry” is known as generic computing component/unit for performing the computing functions of the above indicated steps which amounts no more than mere instructions. Next, the additional limitation/step of “write the record to an intermediate table” represents an insignificant extra solution activity because this additional step including in the claim does not specify how record is performed/processed; so that it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(h).
c/ Analysis under Step 2B:
Furthermore, independent 1, and 9-10 do not include additional elements/limitations beyond the judicial exception that, alone or in combination, are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “processing circuitry” for performing the steps of “extract”, “generate”, “write”, “read”, “separate”, and “register” which amount to no more than mere instructions/functions to apply the exception using the highly generic computing component and is being only used as tool that are well-understood, routine, conventional amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Next, the claims recite additional steps of “write the record…” represents an insignificant extra solution activity because this additional step including in the claims as the computing functions to apply the exception using a generic computer components that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering and transmitting data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and storing/archiving information, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For the at least above reasons, the limitations in claims 1, and 9-10 that are considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-8 depend on independent claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1; and hence, claims 2-8 recite the same as being the above abstract idea under analysis of the Step 2A (Prong I, Prong II), and Step 2B.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites additional limitations of “wherein the link information represents a link to a record in another table, wherein the processing circuitry performs an extraction process of using each of one or more other tables containing a record linked from the origin data by the link information as a target table, generating a corresponding table corresponding to the target table as the intermediate table, extracting a record linked from the origin data by the link information from the target table, and writing the record to the corresponding table, and wherein the processing circuitry performs the extraction process recursively using data of the record registered in the intermediate table as new origin data” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the link information and using the processing circuitry as a tool to perform an/the extraction process(es) which does/do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Plus, the additional steps of “using”, “generating”, “extracting”, and “writing” a/the record in the other/corresponding tables which represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering and transmitting data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations/elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein the link information represents a link to another record in the same table, and wherein the processing circuitry extracts another record in the target table linked by the link information from data of the record extracted from the target table, and writes the another record to the corresponding table”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim language provides further definition of the link information for presenting and also using the processing circuitry as a tool to perform the additional steps of “extracts” and “writes” another record in the target/corresponding table(s) which represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering and transmitting data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations/elements, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein when a supplementary table to be joined to the target table is specified, the processing circuitry generates the corresponding table including an item of the target table and an item of the supplementary table, extracts a record in the target table that is linked from the origin data by the link information so as to write the record to the corresponding table, and also extracts a record in the supplementary table that satisfies a join condition with data of the record that has been extracted so as to write the record in the supplementary table to the corresponding table” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim language provides further definition of “a supplementary table” and using the “processing circuitry” as a tool to perform the additional steps of “generates”, and “extracts” a record in the target/supplementary table(s) represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions that do not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply exception using a generic computer component that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering and transmitting data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations/elements, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein the processing circuitry converts a specified data for which a conversion rule is specified in accordance with the conversion rule”, which do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim language provides further definition of “a conversion rule” applying to specify data. Plus, the additional step of “converts a specified data” and “writes the data” represent insignificant extra solution activities because this additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, e.g., “the processing circuitry”, which is being only used as a tool.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations/elements, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein the processing circuitry converts data of the record that has been extracted, and then writes the data that has been converted to the intermediate table”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the processing circuitry is being only used as a tool to perform the additional step of “converts data” and “writes the data”, which represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions that do not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering and transmitting data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein the processing circuitry generates an extraction query that extracts, from the migration source database, a record that is traceable based on the link information using the origin data as a starting point, and wherein the processing circuitry extracts the record by executing the generated extraction query”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the processing circuitry is being only used as a tool to perform the additional steps of “generates” and “extracts by executing the generated extraction query”, which represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps do not specify how the query is extracting and executing. Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein the processing circuitry refers to query generation information including a selection condition and setting information, and generates the extraction query by setting the setting information in a template query corresponding to the selection condition among a plurality of template queries”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional steps of “refers” and “generates” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions that do not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, e.g., “the processing circuitry” which is being only used as a tool. Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For at least above reasons, claims 1-10 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodavati et al., US Pub. No. 2023/0144349 A1 (hereinafter as “Kodavati”) and Taranov, US Patent No. 11,232,084 B2 (hereinafter as “Taranov”), and further in view of Balducci et al., US Patent No. 7,233,956 B2 (hereinafter as “Balducci”), and Buehne et al., US Pub. No. 2021/0081379 A1 (hereinafter as “Buehne”).
Regarding claim 1, Kodavati teaches a data migration device comprising processing circuitry to:
extract a record from a migration source database in which node information managed in a target record and link information representing a link to another record are managed together in a same table (par. [0021] teaches algorithm of migration record/data in one or more tables from source database to target database, par. [0022] “a configurable source querying interface 202 that retrieves, extracts or otherwise obtains a subset of source data from the source data tables 224 in accordance with source extraction metadata 212. In this regard, the transformation configuration parameters 220 include source extraction metadata 212 that includes parameters identifying the particular source data table(s) 224 from which source data should be extracted, the particular of fields of data to be extracted from the source data table(s) 224, and the particular data records, objects or entries within the identified source data table(s) 224 from which the desired field(s) of data are to be extracted. Thus, the configurable source querying interface 202 may be configured to extract or obtain limited subset of the source data from the source data tables 224, rather than extracting the entire fields and/or records maintained in the particular source data table(s) 224, thereby reducing the amount of time required to extract the desired subset of source data for transformation…”; and par. [0023] “utilizes the source extraction metadata 212 to automatically construct a Structured Query Language (SQL) SELECT statement that identifies the columns or fields of data to be retrieved identified by the source extraction metadata 212, from the source data table(s) 224 identified by the source extraction metadata 212, that also satisfy whatever other additional temporal or conditional criteria are specified by the source extraction metadata 212”; and further in pars. [0030-32] and [0039-40]); and
read, from the intermediate table, the extracted record, and separate data of the record into the node information and the link information (Fig. 4 is shown the read extracted record from source table, and separate data, e.g., value(s), into the intermediate stage as interpreted as the node information and link information; and pars. [0023-24], [0025] “provides the extracted subset of the source data in the intermediate format to an intermediate data staging module 206 that is configured to temporarily store or otherwise maintain the extracted subset of the source data in the intermediate format, which may alternatively be referred to herein as the staging subset of source data or staging data. For example, continuing the currency conversion example, the intermediate data staging module 206 may maintain the transformed extracted values from the price field of entries in the source data table 224 in a different reference currency”, and [0039], wherein the technique of “identifies” fields is inherited the “read”, and e.g., “utilizes the source data format metadata 214 to transform the extracted value for Field 4 (e.g., Value 4) into a different value (e.g., Value 5) that is maintained at the intermediate data staging module 206 (e.g., task 308). For example, in a currency conversion implementation, Value 5 may represent a conversion of the extracted value for Field 4 (Value 4) into a different currency”).
Kodavati does not explicitly teach the amended limitations: “the record including a primary source table, the record being a record that is traceable based on the link information using origin data as a starting point, generate an intermediate table with an item which is a result of changing a primary key of the primary source table to the intermediate table, and write the record to an intermediate table”, and “register the node information and the link information that have been separated in a migration destination database in which the node information and the link information are managed separately.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing in database management system(s)), Taranov teaches: “the record including a primary source table” (see in Fig. 2 at elements 111 and 112 via link of PersonID column, and Fig. 3a, at elements 112, 220, and 330, wherein the record, e.g., Main node, links/references to source table(s) in Source Database 110, and/or the record of Column 331 of PersonID includes record 2 as indicated/conference to the source table 112 at element 213; and col. 5, lines 60-67 to col. 6, lines 1-5; and in col. 13, lines 4-37, and col. 21, lines 15-47, e.g., “…foreign key values of the focus record can be updated so that they reference the same records on the destination database as they did on the source database, even though the primary key value of the referenced record on the source database is different from the new primary key value of the referenced record after it has been migrated to the destination database. As detailed above, such foreign key values can be updated in accordance with the information contained in the records of the migration table, which can specify the primary key values of the referenced record on the source database…”), and “the record being a record that is traceable based on the link information using origin data as a starting point” (col. 8, lines 20-40: “As indicated, links originate with a node corresponding to a referencing table and points to, and thus terminate, with a node corresponding to a referenced table that is referenced by the referencing table. For example, the aforementioned link 225 commences at the node 220, representing the table 112, and terminates at the node 210, representing the table 111, and is an indication that the field 213, of the table 112, is a foreign key referencing the field 221, of the table 111, which acts as a primary key for the table 111. Accordingly, among the multiple fields that a data element defining an individual link can comprise are fields identifying the referencing table from which the link originates and the referenced table at which the link terminates. Additionally, the data element defining an individual link can comprise fields that identify the specific referencing column, or field, of the referencing table, such as by the name applied to such a field in the referencing table, as well as the specific referenced column, or field, of the referenced table, again, such as by the name applied to such a field in the referencing table. Data elements defining individual links can also comprise other fields, such as metadata information about the link”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Taranov would have provided Kodavati with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform database link/reference record including source table for perform the extracting of record using in data migration to target table(s) in destination database (Taranov: Figs. 2-3, and cols. 5, 13, and 21).
Kodavati and Taranov do not explicitly teach the amended limitations: “generate an intermediate table with an item which is a result of changing a primary key of the primary source table to the intermediate table, and write the record to the intermediate table”, and “register the node information and the link information that have been separated in a migration destination database in which the node information and the link information are managed separately.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing in database management system(s)), Balducci teaches: “generate an intermediate table with an item which is a result of changing a primary key of the primary source table to the intermediate table, and write the record to the intermediate table” (Please see in claim 15 (via “loading”=write data record); and claim 19, and claim 30, e.g., “generating an intermediate table corresponding to said selected source table for normalizing said data; providing a table column for generation of primary keys for rows of said table; extracting selected data from said table of said source database; transforming said selected data in conformity with said data and schema transformation rules; generating primary keys for said selected data from said source database in accordance with said schema transformation rules; populating said intermediate table with said selected data and said primary keys to form an intermediate set of data; and populating said tables of said target database with said intermediate set of data in accordance with said schema transformation rules”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Balducci would have provided Kodavati and Taranov with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform data migration from source table to target table with the intermediate table for performing the schema format in accordance transformation rules efficiently in mapping and transforming data between source relational database and target relational database.
Kodavati, Taranov, and Balducci do not explicitly teach the limitation: “register the node information and the link information that have been separated in a migration destination database in which the node information and the link information are managed separately.”
In the same field of endeavor, Buehne teaches:
register the node information and the link information that have been separated in a migration destination database in which the node information and the link information are managed separately (Fig. 4 and par. [0081] “Migration setups may include initially registering the source systems with the migration infrastructure 402, configuring source access (e.g., source OS access) for access by the migration infrastructure 402 at least partially by loading source access definitions from file and generating definitions automatically for all systems, deploying analysis agent(s) on the source systems 404 to perform the database analyses, configuring the database links and database link information needed to access the systems remotely, and analyzing the source systems 404 by running the source system analyses to acquire detailed information about the configured source systems 404 (e.g., system data 612 disclosed further herein)…”, and further in par. [0084]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Buehne would have provided Kodavati, Taranov, and Balducci with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform registering database link/connection and information in the migration infrastructure unit in appropriate structure/format at the target database system(s) efficiently in storage, updates, etc. (Buehne: Figs. 4-6 and pars. [0079-82, and 84]).
Regarding claim 2, Kodavati and Buehne, in combination, teach:
wherein the link information represents a link to a record in another table (Kodavati: Fig. 4; and par. [0024] “the source data transformation module 204 utilizes source data format metadata 214 that identifies or otherwise characterizes the structure or schema associated with the source computing system and/or source data tables 224 to convert, map or otherwise transform the extracted subset of source data from the source data format into the intermediate format”, wherein technique of “map” is interpreted as the “link” record(s) from one table to another table; and Buehne: par. [0079] teaches the database links with the databases in source systems and the target systems),
wherein the processing circuitry performs an extraction process of using each of one or more other tables containing a record linked from the origin data by the link information as a target table (Kodavati: par. [0024] “the source data transformation module 204 utilizes source data format metadata 214 that identifies or otherwise characterizes the structure or schema associated with the source computing system and/or source data tables 224 to convert, map or otherwise transform the extracted subset of source data from the source data format into the intermediate format…”, wherein source metadata is interpreted as the origin data; and par. [0026]), generating a corresponding table corresponding to the target table as the intermediate table (Kodavati: Figs. 2, element 206, Fig. 4 at Intermediate staging table; par. [0024] “an intermediate data format or structure that is independent of the source computing system or any other particular computing system or platform.”, wherein the intermediate structure is interpreted as the intermediate=corresponding table), extracting a record linked from the origin data by the link information from the target table, and writing the record to the corresponding table (Kodavati: again in Figs. 2 and 4 as explained above; and par. [0026] “the configurable transformation engine 200 includes a target data transformation module 208 that receives the extracted subset of source data from the intermediate data staging module 206 and transforms the extracted subset of source data from the intermediate format into the desired destination data format, structure or schema associated with the target computing system. In this regard, the target data transformation module 208 utilizes target data format metadata 216 that identifies or otherwise characterizes the structure or schema associated with the target computing system and/or target data tables 226 to convert, map or otherwise transform the extracted subset of source data from the intermediate data format into the intermediate format.”, wherein the map or transform are interpreted as “record link”, and source data is interpreted as the origin data), and
wherein the processing circuitry performs the extraction process recursively using data of the record registered in the intermediate table as new origin data (Buehne: Fig. 4 and par. [0081] “Migration setups may include initially registering the source systems with the migration infrastructure 402, configuring source access (e.g., source OS access) for access by the migration infrastructure 402 at least partially by loading source access definitions from file and generating definitions automatically for all systems, deploying analysis agent(s) on the source systems 404 to perform the database analyses, configuring the database links and database link information needed to access the systems remotely, and analyzing the source systems 404 by running the source system analyses to acquire detailed information about the configured source systems 404 (e.g., system data 612 disclosed further herein)…”, and further in par. [0084].
Regarding claim 3, Kodavati and Taranov, in combination, teach:
wherein the link information represents a link to another record in the same table (Kodavati: par. [0021] teaches algorithm of migration record/data in one or more tables from source database to target database, par. [0022] “a configurable source querying interface 202 that retrieves, extracts or otherwise obtains a subset of source data from the source data tables 224 in accordance with source extraction metadata 212. In this regard, the transformation configuration parameters 220 include source extraction metadata 212 that includes parameters identifying the particular source data table(s) 224 from which source data should be extracted, the particular of fields of data to be extracted from the source data table(s) 224, and the particular data records, objects or entries within the identified source data table(s) 224 from which the desired field(s) of data are to be extracted. Thus, the configurable source querying interface 202 may be configured to extract or obtain limited subset of the source data from the source data tables 224, rather than extracting the entire fields and/or records maintained in the particular source data table(s) 224, thereby reducing the amount of time required to extract the desired subset of source data for transformation…”; and par. [0023] “utilizes the source extraction metadata 212 to automatically construct a Structured Query Language (SQL) SELECT statement that identifies the columns or fields of data to be retrieved identified by the source extraction metadata 212, from the source data table(s) 224 identified by the source extraction metadata 212, that also satisfy whatever other additional temporal or conditional criteria are specified by the source extraction metadata 212”; and further in pars. [0030-32] and [0039-40]).
wherein the processing circuitry extracts another record in the target table linked by the link information from data of the record extracted from the target table, and writes the another record to the corresponding table (Taranov: Figs. 3a-3d see in particular at element 130 – Destination Database having the target table with the extracted other records/fields).
Regarding claim 4, Kodavati and Taranov, in combination, teach:
wherein when a supplementary table to be joined to the target table is specified (Taranov: Figs. 3A-3D: wherein the supplementary table to be joined to the target table in destination database; col. 6, lines 6-28, wherein the “merging” is interpreted as “joined” as known by a skill artisan), the processing circuitry generates the corresponding table including an item of the target table and an item of the supplementary table (Kodavati: see Fig. 4 via intermediate staging table=corresponding table), extracts a record in the target table that is linked from the origin data by the link information so as to write the record to the corresponding table (Taranov: Figs. 3a-3d see in particular at element 130 – Destination Database having the target table with the extracted other records/fields), and also extracts a record in the supplementary table that satisfies a join condition with data of the record that has been extracted so as to write the record in the supplementary table to the corresponding table (Taranov: Figs. 3a-3d see in particular at element 130 – Destination Database having the target table with the extracted other records/fields; and col. 7, lines 12-44).
Regarding claim 5, Kodavati teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry converts a specified data for which a conversion rule is specified in accordance with the conversion rule (par. [0011] “converts the subset of source data from its initial structure according to the source data format into an intermediate data format that is independent of the source computing system, resulting in a corresponding staging subset of source data (or staging data) in a platform-independent, intermediate data format.” Implies to conversion rule, and see further in par. [0024] “the source data transformation module 204 utilizes source data format metadata 214 that identifies or otherwise characterizes the structure or schema associated with the source computing system and/or source data tables 224 to convert, map or otherwise transform the extracted subset of source data from the source data format into the intermediate format. For example, in one implementation, the configurable transformation engine 200 is configured to support currency conversion, where the source data format metadata 214 includes information for identifying the country, denomination or currency type to be associated with values retrieved from a price field of entries in a source data table 224 for tracking orders of a particular product or service. In this regard, the source data transformation module 204 may utilize the currency type information from the source data format metadata 214 to convert numerical values into a different value in a reference currency (e.g., from rupees to dollars)”).
Regarding claim 6, Kodavati teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry converts data of the record that has been extracted, and then writes the data that has been converted to the intermediate table (Fig. 4 and par. [0011] “converts the subset of source data from its initial structure according to the source data format into an intermediate data format that is independent of the source computing system, resulting in a corresponding staging subset of source data (or staging data) in a platform-independent, intermediate data format.” Implies to conversion rule, and see further in pars. [0024-25]).
Regarding claim 7, Kodavati teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry generates an extraction query that extracts, from the migration source database, a record that can be traced based on the link information using the origin data as a starting point (Fig. 4 as shown the source/origin data/values from source table/database as at a starting point then tracing through intermediate staging table connects to target table/database; and par. [0023] via constructed a Structured Query Language (SQL) including “SELECT” statement as a selection condition and also setting information/metadata in columns or fields/records, and extraction query in template/interface query (SQL)), and
wherein the processing circuitry extracts the record by executing the generated extraction query (see in pars. [0023-24, and 27] and [0039-40]).
Regarding claim 8, Kodavati teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry refers to query generation information including a selection condition and setting information, and generates the extraction query by setting the setting information in a template query corresponding to the selection condition among a plurality of template queries (see par. [0023] via constructed a Structured Query Language (SQL) including “SELECT” statement as a selection condition and also setting information/metadata in columns or fields/records, and extraction query in template/interface query (SQL); and pars. [0024, 27, and 39-40]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected in the analysis of above claim 1; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Response to Arguments
Referring to claim objections, the objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claims 1, 7, and 9-10.
Referring to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 to respective claim 1 as software per se, Applicant’s arguments to the “processing circuitry” (see Remarks, pages 6-7) have been considered, but is not persuasive because “processing circuity” should construe the electronic circuits involved in manipulating signals, even though Applicant mentions that the “processing circuitry” is hardware such as “processor, memory and storage at paragraph [0094]. The meaning of storage is further clarified at paragraph [0020] to include hardware such as HDD, SD. memory card, compactflash, NAND flash, flexible disk, optical disk, CD, Blu-ray and DVD. Each of these is an example of hardware elements and not transitory signals. Accordingly, the plain meaning of the claim term does not include transitory signals and the examples in the specification also do not include transitory signals.” Examiner respectfully suggests that the term “processing circuitry” should be replaced by “a processor” and/or “a memory” to overcome the rejection.
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 to claims 1-10 as being abstract idea, Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pages 7-8) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive because claim 1 (same as to claims 9-10) recites steps of “extract a record…”, “generate an intermediate table with an item…”, “read, …, the record, and separate data of the record…”, as drafted, are mental processes, which can be performed via mind that causes these steps falling within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), part III). Plus, the additional elements, e.g., “processing circuitry” is known as generic computing component/unit for performing the computing functions of the above indicated steps which amounts no more than mere instructions. Next, the additional limitation/step of “write the record to an intermediate table” represents an insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(h))because this additional step including in the claims as the computing functions to apply the exception using a generic computer components that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering and transmitting data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and storing/archiving information, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Please see MPEP 2106(a)-(h).
For at least above reasons, the rejections are still maintained.
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments to the amended limitations in claim 1 (same as to claims 9-10) have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment to the claims. Applicant's newly amended features are taught implicitly, expressly, or impliedly by the prior art of record. Please see the rejections set forth above for details.
Prior Arts
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica N. Le whose telephone number is (571)270-1009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (EST).
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/Jessica N Le/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights