DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 16 are amended.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 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 a continuation (CON.) of 17/229,123 filed on 04/13/2021, which was patented number 12,061,606, and has provisional application 63/009,375 filed on 04/13/2020.
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 1-20 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:
“generating, by a primary computing system comprising at least one processor, and in a change record database separate from a base record database, change entries reflecting changes to base entries in the base record database, wherein:
the primary computing system maintains the based record database and the change record database;
receiving, by the primary computing system, via a network, an external query from an external system that maintains a derived record database separate from the primary computing system, wherein:
the derived record database stores copies of one or more of the base entries in the base record database, and
the external query requests updated data indicative of one or more of the changes to the base entries in the base record database since a previous update to the derived record database;
generating, by the primary computing system, and based on the external query, the updated data by including at least one change entry, from the change record database, that indicates the one or more of the changes to the base entries since the previous update to the derived record database; and
causing, by the primary computing system, and by providing the updated data to the external system via the network in response to the external query, the external system to update the derived record database based on the one or more of the changes to the base entries indicated by the at least one change entry.”
a/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong I:
As above indicated limitations, the steps of “generating, …, …, change entries reflecting changes to base entries in the base record database” and “generating, …, …, the updated data…”, as drafted, are mental processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of these indicated limitations in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, option, etc.) or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computing component(s) (e.g., “a primary computing system comprising at least one processor”, and “external database system”). According to the MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) (Part III) that if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind, e.g., (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper", but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(*** similar rejection are applied to limitations recite in claims 10 and 16, respectively).
b/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong II:
The remaining limitations in claims 1, 10, and 16 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For instance, the additional elements, e.g., “a primary computing system”, “an external system”, comprising at least one “processor” and “a memory”/“medium” are known as generic computing components/units use as tools for performing the computing functions of the above indicated steps. Furthermore, the additional limitation/step of “receiving” and “causing” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claims do not specify how entries are changed and updated between interacts of the base record database and the derived record database; 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, 10, and 16 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 claims are recite the additional elements of “a computing system”, “an external system”, comprising at least one “processor” and “a memory”/ “medium” 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(s). Plus, the additional steps of “receiving” and “causing” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claims are 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.
For the at least above reasons, the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 16 that are considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 depend on independent claims 1, 10, and 16 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 16; and hence, claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-20 recite the same as being the above abstract idea under analysis of the Step 2A (Prong I, Prong II), and Step 2B, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites additional limitations of “wherein the change entries indicate times of the changes to the base entries” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the change entries is indicated times of the changes to the base entries 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. 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 change entries indicate types of the changes to the base entries”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the change entries is indicated types of the changes to the base entries which does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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 4, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein: the external query indicates a subset of the base entries, and the at least one change entry corresponds to the subset of the base entries.” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the query indicates a subset of the base entries and change entry 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. 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 5, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein: the external query indicates a timeframe, and the at least one change entry is associated with at least one time within the timeframe”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the query indicates a timeframe and associated change entry within the timeframe 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. 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 6, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein: the change record database comprises a first change entry associated with a first change, made at a first time, to a particular base entry of the base entries, the change record database comprises one or more subsequent change entries, the one or more subsequent change entries are associated with one or more subsequent changes, made at one or more times later than the first time, to the particular base entry, and generating the updated data comprises: including a latest one of the one or more subsequent change entries in the updated data, and omitting the first change entry from the updated data”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the change record database comprises one or more change entry at time interval 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 step of “generating the updated data…”, as drafted, is mental processing (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" that falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Plus, the additional steps of “including” and “omitting...” represent insignificant extra solution activity because these additional steps including in the claim 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 use.
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 7, the claim recites further additional limitation of “detecting, by the primary computing system, the changes to the base entries in the base database, wherein the primary computing system generates the change entries based on detecting the changes to the base entries”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the change database comprises one or more change entry at time interval 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 step of “detecting, …, the changes of the base entries”, as drafted, is mental processing that falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites additional limitations/elements, e.g., “the computing system” having at least one of processor, memory which are used as tool(s) for performing the instructions 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 8, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein the external system is a first external system, the derived record database is a first derived record database that stores first copies of a first set of the base entries, the external query is a first external query, the updated data is first updated data indicating a first set of change entries corresponding to the first set of the base entries, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the primary computing system, via the network, a second external query from a second external system, wherein the second external system maintains a second derived record database that stores second copies of a second set of the base entries; generating, by the primary computing system, second updated data based on the second external query by including a second set of change entries that corresponds to the second set of the base entries, the second set of change entries being different from the first set of change entries; and causing, by the primary computing system, and by providing the second updated data to the second external system, the second external system to update the second derived database based on the second set of change entries”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the external system, the derived record database, the external query, and the updated data that 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 step of “generating, …, second updated data …”, as drafted, is mental processing (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" that falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea (see MEPE 2106.04(a)(2), part III)
The additional steps of “receiving”, “providing”, and “causes” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claims are 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.
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 9, the claim recites additional limitations/elements “wherein the first external system and the second external system, respectively, submit instances of the first external query and the second external query to the computing system at different intervals,” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language provides further definition of the change database comprises one or more change entry at time interval 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. 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 claims 11-15 and 17-20, the claims recite the similar limitations of claims 2-9; and therefore, are also rejected on the same above basis.
For at least above reasons, claims 1-20 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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caro et al., US Patent No. 11,055,276 (hereinafter as “Caro”) in view of Hallgren et al., US Patent No. 2018/0357235 A1 (hereinafter as “Hallgren”), and further in view of Gehani et al., US Patent No. 6,098,078 (hereinafter as “Gehani”).
Regarding claim 1, Caro teaches: a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a primary computing system comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1, element 101 is interpreted as a primary computing system), and in a change record database separate from a base record database (see Abstract: e.g., “changes made to the base table”), change entries reflecting changes to base entries in the base record database (see Fig. 1, element 106, and Figs. 2-4: shown database 200 is interpreted as the base database, which is separated from the change data table 300 and Updated database 400 having change data/entry; col. 6, lines 20-23, e.g., “identify which fields of record data have been modified. The record header may also have a change flag to indicate store, modify, or erase of record…”, wherein the field(s) is/are defined in the col. 5, lines 43-48; and col. 9, lines 13-25: “The field associated with column 206 and row 212 has been changed from marketing to sales indicating that the employee Joe has been changed from the Marketing department to the Sales department with the corporation. The field associated with column 208 and row 214 has been changed from 65000 to 75000 which indicates that Mary's salary has been increased by 10000. In column 202, both fields associated with row 212 and row 214 have been changed to “update” indicating that a field of data has been updated or needs to be updated in the respective row.”), wherein: the primary computing system maintains the base record database and the change record database (again in Fig. 1, elements 101, 102 and 106; and Figs. 2-4 via the Database 200, and Change Data table 300);
Caro does not explicitly teach the limitations: “receiving, by the primary computing system, via a network, an external query from an external system that maintains a derived record database separate from the primary computing system, wherein: the derived record database stores copies of one or more of the base entries in the base record database, and the external query requests updated data indicative of one or more of the changes to the base entries in the base record database since a previous update to the derived database”; and “generating, by the primary computing system, and based on the external query, the updated data by including at least one change entry, from the change record database, that indicates the one or more of the changes to the base entries since the previous update to the derived record database”; and “causing, by the primary computing system, and by providing the updated data to the external system in response to the external query, the external system to update the derived record database, based on the one or more of the changes to the base entries indicated by the at least one change entry.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Hallgren teaches:
receiving, by the primary computing system, via a network, an external query from an external system (Fig. 1, elements 138 – External Computer which is connected to server computer system 110 and host computing device 130 via cloud network 120. The connection of external computer should allow to send update query request as interpreted as the external query; and par. [0056]: “transmit one or more SQL queries to API 150 that specify updates to the raw datasets that were identified”) that maintains a derived record database separate from the primary computing system (Fig. 1 at elements 110 and 138 are shown as separately; further in pars. [0056]: e.g., “external database source”, and [0064]: “An application instance 132, external computer 138, or other source may specify data to be deleted and achieve the assured removal of all relevant data records from raw datasets, derived datasets downstream, and historical builds of those derived datasets”) wherein:
the derived record database stores copies of one or more of the base entries in the base record database (Fig. 2 is shown the derived datasets and raw dataset=based record, see in Abstract: “Using a distributed database system that manages a plurality of different raw datasets and a plurality of derived datasets that have been derived from the raw datasets based on a plurality of derivation relationships that link the raw datasets to the derived datasets, a subset of records that are candidates for propagated deletion of specified data values is determined…”, wherein the raw dataset is interpreted/implied to the base entries; par. [0034]: “Typically execution of the operations causes instructing one or more worker processes 170 to execute builds of derived datasets, based on raw datasets, with distributed data storage system 180. In this context, a dataset may be termed a raw dataset when data in the dataset has been originally created by a service, or received from a source of data prior to any filtering, joining or other transformation. An example is daily web log data for web services. A dataset may be deemed raw in the sense that a program or transformation operation is not executed to produce versions or transformations of the dataset. In contrast, if a program or process computes a join between datasets A and B, resulting in dataset C, then dataset C is a derived dataset because it is derived from one or more other dataset versions. Joins, filters, calculations resulting in updates of fields or records, or other modifications or transformations to result in derived datasets may be performed in a database system, an Apache Spark system, a data repository that is programmed to perform merges, or any other program or system.”), and
the external query requests updated data indicative of one or more of the changes to the base entries in the base record database since a previous update to the derived database (see Fig. 2 and par. [0055: “…, if deletion request 136 effectively communicates “DELETE ALL RECORDS OF JANE DOE DATED EARLIER THAN 6 MONTHS AGO,” and the process of FIG. 3A results in identifying a count of “36” records that need to be deleted across a plurality of different raw datasets that matched queries in the system, there is a need to identify every raw dataset that contains one of the “36” records. Identification may use label values carried in the records that were identified or other metadata from distributed data storage system 180.”; and par. [0064]: “external computer 138, or other source may specify data to be deleted and achieve the assured removal of all relevant data records from raw datasets”).
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 Hallgren would have provided Caro with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to query request update data of changes in dataset=entries of raw=base table/database and updated to derived dataset (Hallgren: Figs. 1-3; Abstract, and cols. 5-8).
Caro and Hallgren do not explicitly teach the limitations: and “generating, …, the updated data by including at least one change entry, from the change record database, that indicates the one or more of the changes to the base entries since the previous update to the derived record database”; and “causing, …, the external system to update the derived record database, based on the one or more of the changes to the base entries indicated by the at least one change entry.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Ghani teaches:
generating, …, the updated data by including at least one change entry, from the change record database, that indicates the one or more of the changes to the base entries since the previous update to the derived record database” (Abstract: “A log record is generated including at least the name of the updated data item. The log record has an associated time stamp for the updated data item name in one embodiment or an associated version vector value in another…”; col. 9, lines 10-13: “1. Initially, all components of V.sub.i are 0. 2. When node i performs an update to any data item in the database, it increments its component in the database version vector: V.sub.ii.sup.new =V.sub.ii.sup.old +1”, and lines 31-36: “The log indicates for every server the last update for that data item that the server to which the log belongs knows about. When the database version vector indicates that an update is necessary, the log is used to determine what data items must be updated”; and col. 13, lines 2-5: “procedures executed when a node performs an update, when it propagates updates from another node j, and when it copies a later version of a data item from another node (out-of-bound copying)”); and
causing, …, the external system to update the derived record database, based on the one or more of the changes to the base entries indicated by the at least one change entry” (see col. 2, lines 4-23; col. 8, lines 17-20: “When server i obtains missing updates for x from a server j (either by copying the whole data item or by obtaining log records for missing updates)…)”; col. 10, lines 29-33: “The log on server i conceptually has a record 1(x,j) for every data item x and every server j. This record corresponds to the latest update to x originally performed by server j and reflected in server i's copy of x. It contains the number of updates performed by server j at the time of the updates”; col. 12, lines 1-14: “The protocol consists of procedures executed when a node performs an update, when it propagates updates from another node j, and when it copies a later version of a data item from another node (out-of-bound copying)… if i had previously copied a newer version of data item x from j as an out-of-bound data and its regular copy of x is still old, x will be copied again during update propagation” such that teaches the update data item/entry(x) between the nodes i and j, or servers i and j, which implies to causing the nod/server to update the record database; and col. 16, lines 10-20: “… Each server also maintains two data structures: a database version vector (DBVV) and the log of the latest updates. In this embodiment, the DBVV Vi, in its entry corresponding to server j, or V.sub.ij, records the timestamp of the latest update (to any data item of the database) originated at server j that is reflected on replica”).
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 Gehani would have provided Caro, and Hallgren with the above limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the updates/changes data of the records via replica(s) of the data structural database in separate data nodes/servers (Gehani: Abstract; Fig. 5; and col. 2, lines 4-23, col. 6, lines 24-67: teaches propagate updates (interchanges) between different databases in different servers/systems; col. 10, lines 9-33; col. 16, lines 10-29).
Regarding claim 2, Caro and Gehani, in combination, teach: “wherein the change entries indicate times of the changes to the base entries” (Caro: see col. 6, lines 23-37, wherein the “record versions” indicate/identify the times of the changes/updates to the base fields/rows having entries; and Gehani: see col. 16, lines 10-26 via timestamp records update).
Regarding claim 3, Caro teaches: “wherein the change entries indicate types of the changes to the base entries” (see col. 4, lines 12-17 “The transactions regarding the database may be changes to fields in the database where the changes are updates, modifications, additions, deletions, etc. The change to the data in the present technology also changes a record header identifying a change in the value of each field for that record in the database”, and col. 20-23, e.g., “identify which fields of record data have been modified. The record header may also have a change flag to indicate store, modify, or erase of record…”).
Regarding claim 4, Caro and Hallgren, in combination, teach: “wherein: the external query indicates a subset of the base entries” (Caro: col. 6, lines 40-54, e.g., receiving query for a returned result set to the updated/changed record associated with the base table=database, Fig. 5 at element 512; Hallgren: Figs. 1-3, via raw datasets are interpreted as the subset of the base entries), and “the at least one change entry corresponds to the subset of the base entries” (Caro: Figs. 2-4; and col. 6, lines 20-23: “identify which fields of record data have been modified...”, wherein the field(s) is/are defined in the col. 5, lines 43-48, and col. 9, lines 13-25: “The field associated with column 206 and row 212 has been changed from marketing to sales indicating that the employee Joe has been changed from the Marketing department to the Sales department with the corporation. The field associated with column 208 and row 214 has been changed from 65000 to 75000 which indicates that Mary's salary has been increased by 10000. In column 202, both fields associated with row 212 and row 214 have been changed to “update” indicating that a field of data has been updated or needs to be updated in the respective row” disclose subset of the base entries as known by a skill artisan).
Regarding claim 7, Caro teaches: “detecting, by the primary computing system, the changes to the base entries in the base record database” (Caro: Fig. 2, element 200: shown base database having a particular base entry, Fig. 3, element 300, indicate change entry detection, and Fig. 4, element 400 – Updated Database=change database; and col. 7, lines 9-15, wherein the “types of changes (Store, Modify, Erase…” set of fields intended of use the change of the base entry of the base record is detecting; Figs. 2-4, that should be delete or insert rather than the update/change), and “wherein the primary computing system generates the change entries based on detecting the changes to the base entries” (Caro: see Figs. 2-4 as shown the base table at database 200, and the change data indication in data table 300; and col. 6, lines 20-23: “identify which fields of record data have been modified. The record header may also have a change flag to indicate store, modify, or erase of record...”).
Regarding claims 8-9, the claims recite the limitations which are similar to the limitations/steps in claim 1, but stating the limitations in a term/word: “second” (e.g., “a second external query”, “a second external system”, “a second derived record database”, “second copies”, “a second set of the base entries”, etc.); hence, the claims are rejected under the same rational on the basis of claim 1, respectively.
Claims 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 1-4, 7; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caro, Hallgren, and Gehani, and in view of Shuma, US Pub. No. 2020/0125660 A1 (hereinafter as “Shuma”).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. However, Caro, Hallgren, and Gehani do not explicitly teach: “wherein: the external query indicates a timeframe, and the at least one change entry is associated with at least one time within the timeframe.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Shuma teaches: “wherein: the external query indicates a timeframe, and the at least one change entry is associated with at least one time within the timeframe.” (see Fig. 5, element 504: shown as time(s) within timestamp/time frame, and further in pars. [0047]: “a date and time of the last change made to the data row”, and [0056] wherein the query of SQL: “SELECT * from MY_TABLE where SPECIAL_REGISTER_DATE_CHANGE>“2018/10/01-12:20:00.000000” is interpreted as the external query which indicates a timeframe; and par. [0068] “Date and time 504 may be derived from a timestamp generated by the processor when an update to the database is performed. Modern processors have available constructs such as special register CURRENT_DATE (for date) or CURRENT_TIMESTAMP (for date and time) that can be used to derive the date and time that a change occurred”).
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 Shuma would have provided Caro, Hallgren, and Gehani with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the updates/changes data of the records in the database(s) more efficient with the different date/time versions according to timeframe/timestamp (Shuma: Abstract and par. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. Furthermore, Caro teaches: wherein:
the change record database comprises a first change entry associated with a first change, made at a first time, to a particular base entry of the base entries (see Fig. 2, element 200: shown base database having a particular base entry, Fig. 3, element 300, indicate first change entry associated with the first change, and Fig. 4, element 400 – Updated Database=change database),
the change record database comprises one or more subsequent change entries, the one or more subsequent change entries are associated with one or more subsequent changes, made at one or more times later than the first time, to the particular base entry (e.g., record versions which is intended of use subsequent change entries associated with subsequent changes from each time, see col. 6, lines 23-39, wherein the current version, and old version are interpreted as changes made different times subsequently, wherein the current versions is inherited the “times later than the first time”), and
generating the updated data (see Figs. 3-4 implementing the updated data; col. 6, line 8: “creates change data related to database 102”) comprises: including a latest one of the one or more subsequent change entries in the updated data (see col. 6, lines 23-39, wherein the current version=latest one change entry, and the current and old versions are interchanged subsequently; and col. 7, lines 2-17 and lines 31-35, for instance, “…Such a subscription will denote the types of changes (Store, Modify, Erase—commonly referred to in SQL as Insert, Update, Delete) and the set of fields, F, that are of interest…”).
Caro, Hallgren, and Gehani do not explicitly teach: “omitting the first change entry from the updated data.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Shuma teaches: “omitting the first change entry from the updated data” (par. [0034]; par. [0037] “subsequent updates (e.g., addition, deletion, modification) are made to the data table, the appropriate index entries can be updated with the date and time of the change…”); and further in par. [0101] “If the data row found in the changed data rows 632 is a delete …, then the changed data row is ignored as it is no longer valid”, wherein the “is ignored” is interpreted as the “omit” of the first change row/entry; and pars. [0047-48] disclose the technique of omit the update data of the first change entry as “delete” rows and/or the data row is never updated).
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 Shuma would have provided Caro, Hallgren, and Gehani with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the updates/changes data of the records in the database(s) more efficient including ignore/omit previous data/entry (Shuma: Abstract and par. [0004]).
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 5-6; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Response to Arguments
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being abstract idea, Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/02/2026 (see Remarks, pages 8-15) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Accordance to the updated 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), examiner respectfully submits that, under analysis of Step 2A (Prong I), the claim 1 recites the steps of “generating, …, …, change entries reflecting changes to base entries in the base record database” and “generating, …, the updated data based on the external query”, as drafted, are mentally processing because these indicated limitations cover the performance in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, option, etc., and/or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computing component(s) (e.g., “a primary computing system comprising at least one processor”, and/or “an external system” connecting via a network) (see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper", but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), Part III.
Examiner respectfully submits that the similar above analysis is applied to limitations recited in claims 10 and 16.
Further analysis under Step 2A (Prong II) and Step 2B, the remaining limitations in claims 1, 10, and 16 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” (see MPEP §2106.05(a)-(h)).
For instance, the additional elements, e.g., “a computing system”, “an external system”, comprising at least one “processor” and “a memory”/ “medium” are known as high level of generality and merely used the computing components/units as tools for performing the above indicated steps recited in claims 1, 10, and 6 (e.g., “they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work”, see Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978); and Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Also, the additional steps of “receiving” and “providing” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claims do not specify how data/updated data is/are processed/executed; so that it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Plus, these additional steps are 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.
For at least above reasons, the rejections are still maintained.
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/02/2026 (see Remarks, pages 16-19) to respective claim 1 (same as to claims 10 and 16) 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.
The other claims argued merely because of a dependency on a previously argued claims in the brief presented to the examiner, filed 07/02/2026 (Remarks, pages 19-21), are moot in view of the examiner's interpretation of the claims and art and are still considered rejected based on their respective rejections from at least a prior Office action (part(s) of recited again above).
The Examiner has full latitude to interpret limitation(s) of each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. See MPEP §2111 – Claim Interpretation, e.g., "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation). In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
The indicated allowable subject matter of dependent claims 8-9 is withdrawn in view of the discovered references. Rejections based on the cited references as recited in the above rejected base claim 1 under the same rational. 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