Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on July 8th, 2026, which claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claim 1 is presented in independent form.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A plurality of datasets” in line 2, which contains a typographical error. The limitation should be -- [[A]] a plurality of datasets --.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first Scala case class … and the second Scala case class” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be -- [[the]] a first Scala case class … and [[the]] a second Scala case class --.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and source writer” in line 10, which contains a typographical error. The limitation should be -- [[and]] source writer --.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same non-recursive data model” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be -- [[the]] same non-recursive data model --.
Claims 2-21: are dependent on claim 1 but not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-15 recite the limitation “The source framework” in line 1. The limitation should be -- The [[source]] framework --.
Claims 16-21 recite the limitation “The model framework” in line 1. The limitation should be -- The [[model]] framework --.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the code structure” in line 2. The limitation should be -- the code [[structure]] --.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the most recent version of a dataset” in lines 1-2. The limitation should be -- [[the]] most recent version of [[a]] the dataset --.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the data area … the paths” in line 3. The limitation should be -- [[the]] a data area … [[the]] paths --.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the resultant data streams” in line 4. The limitation should be -- [[the]] resultant data streams --.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “datasets” in line 2. The limitation should be -- the datasets --.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the code base” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be -- [[the]] code base --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The combination of claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-21 are directed to framework and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1: recites the limitations of “
A plurality of datasets as input sources, where the datasets may include pseudo-datasets;
where data sources may be described as a pair of Scala case classes, the first Scala case class encapsulating a source framework structure of each element in a data source, and the second Scala case class encapsulating model framework specifics of accessing the data source;
where from the pair of Scala case classes, implicit derivation of type classes allow for functionality at compile time, the allowed functionality including multiple of: a source reader, a source data manipulator, a data summarizer, and source writer, data cleanup, and random valid data generation; and
where all objects in a dataset can be described by the same non-recursive data model.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a) and (b) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “a framework,” “pseudo-datasets,” “data sources,” “Scala case classes” “encapsulating,” “source framework structure,” “model framework specifics,” “compile time,” “source reader,” “source data manipulator,” “data summarizer,” “source writer,” “data cleanup,” “objects,” and “non-recursive data model”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (d), (f) and (g) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2: the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the non-recursive data model may be declared as a non-recursive Scala type” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including functionality available at runtime, including one or more of: AWS S3 to Google CS, Google BigQuery Populator, Dataset cleanup, AWS Athena Populator, Data catalog generation, and Incompatible data detection” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including automatic replication of new and old datasets to one or more of: Athena, BigQuery, and RedShift” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including reading the most recent version of a dataset automatically in jobs” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including handling unavailable data automatically” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8: the claim recites additional element recitations of “where the framework is plugin-based” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including automatic deletion of old datasets based on retention rules” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10: the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein all datasets are documented as code, and where each dataset may be declared as two Scala classes” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 10 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11: the claim recites additional element recitations of “where the source framework supports partitioned file structures” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12: the claim recites additional element recitations of “where the source framework abstracts away source and file systems, each data processing job containing within it an object that specifies the data area being worked on, where the object is used to generate the paths upon read” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 12 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including a UI for exploring data sources and how they are used by jobs” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 14 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 15: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including a read/write logger that records access to datasets during job execution to a database” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 15 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including automatic generation of one or both of random and blank instances” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 16 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 16 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 17: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including automatic validation of instances” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 17 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 18: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including detection of functional type changes between consecutive runs, based on hashes of the code base” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 18 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 19: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including strongly typed fields leading to fewer runtime bugs” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 19 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 19 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 20: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including custom enumeration types supporting short names and conversion to bit vectors” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 20 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 20 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 21: the claim recites additional element recitations of “including one or more of custom Avro, Parquet, TSV, JSON, and FlatteningTSV writers or readers” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 21 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 21 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chartrand (Pub. No.: US 2022/0334834) discloses Automatically generating code and related artifacts such as application programming interfaces (APIs) and related documentation from an abstract model of a database. The abstract model is derived from a physical model which may be a source such as a legacy database, an entity relationship diagram, or other schema defining the data tables, objects, entities, or relationships etc. of the source. The generated code may be exposed (that is, made visible to the developer in its pre-compiled state) and further configurable and extendable. Any such extended code is maintained separately from generated code. An API and related documentation are also generated from the same abstract model.
Roth et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0288893) discloses a data structure that may be implemented in a computing system implementing a managed code framework, wherein a number of data fields stored on the medium and representing a data structure facilitating the extension of configuration parameters used in configuring class types instantiations of class types in the managed code framework. The data structure includes a first data field including data representing an extensions section. The extensions section includes elements including name/class type pairs, the name describing a tagged element in a mark-up document correlated with an application class type. The data structure also includes a second data field containing configuration elements for configuring class types for instantiating class types in a managed code framework. The second data field consumes one or more name/class type pairs from the first data field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
July 11th, 2026
Prosecution Insights