DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “non-generic transformation logic including a schema mapping ruleset configured to reduce data-conversion overhead by converting heterogeneous data formats into a standardized format” is not practically performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Converting data according to logic recites the mental process of following the logic. There is no indication that following the schema mapping ruleset – to determine what action to take – is not practically performable in the human mind. That transforming data according to a ruleset is recited as being performed on a computer is not persuasive. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Applicant argues that the invention improves technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The machine-monitored network conditions include determining that the data from the respective source is available. Unlike monitoring and analyzing network packets, see SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the human mind is equipped to make the sort of determinations, especially when considering that the claimed monitoring of network traffic is supposed to be capable of determining that data from the source is available without limitation as to how the determination is made.
The normalization engine does not improve technology. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), 2106.05(f).
If Applicant wishes to amend the claims such that the only trigger condition is a network traffic condition, then this would be an additional element that would require Berkheimer analysis to determine whether it were well-understood, routine, and conventional, but Applicant has not done so. For instance, Applicant’s reference to “dynamic halting of ingestion based on changes in those conditions” is simply not claimed.
Applicant argues that the machine learning of claim 21 is not generic. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invocation of machine learning to stand in place of a human looking at historical traffic patterns and predicting when traffic will be low is, indeed, generic invocation of machine learning. There is nothing in the disclosure hat hints at an improvement to machine learning or a computer implementing machine learning.
Applicant argues that Pulver does not teach a normalization engine including non-generic transformation logic including a schema mapping ruleset configured to reduce data-conversion overhead by converting heterogeneous data formats into a standardized format. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It does. Pulver ¶ [0035] (“Processing module 111 b includes knowledge regarding the differences in how tags and values are represented.”).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “then” should be “than.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 20-21 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “non-generic transformation logic including a schema mapping ruleset configured to reduce data-conversion overhead.” This is new matter.
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 11, and 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “engage a normalization engine to automatically normalize the data ingested from the at least one first external data source and the at least one second external data source, the normalization engine including non-generic transformation logic including a schema mapping ruleset configured to reduce data-conversion overhead by converting heterogeneous data formats into a standardized format,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “converting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., the value of a data point based on the transformation logic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “prior to satisfaction of a third trigger condition, aggregate the normalized data to generate an aggregated dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “aggregating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., the value of a data point based on first data and second data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely normalizing and aggregating data. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the GROUPING
The abstract idea of normalizing and aggregating data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “ingest data from at least one first external data source in response to a first trigger condition determined from machine-monitored network traffic,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “halt the ingesting of data from the at least one first external data source,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “ingest data from at least one second external data source in response to a second trigger condition,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “halt the ingesting of data from the at least one second external data source,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the manual process of deciding when to ingest data for aggregation. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “ingest data from at least one first external data source in response to a first trigger condition,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “halt the ingesting of data from the at least one first external data source,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “ingest data from at least one second external data source in response to a second trigger condition,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “halt the ingesting of data from the at least one second external data source,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of normalizing and aggregating data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determine that a current amount of network traffic drops below a first threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that traffic is below a threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determine that a current time is equal to a first predefined trigger time,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a time is the same as another time. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determine that data from the at least one first external data source is available,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the data source is available. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely forming a judgment that an event has happened. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determine that the ingesting of the data from the at least one first external data source is complete,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the first ingesting is complete. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determine that a current amount of network traffic drops below a second threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that traffic is below a threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determine that a current time is equal to a second predefined trigger time,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a time is the same as another time. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determine that data from the at least one second external data source is available,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the data source is available. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely forming a judgment that an event has happened. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4 and 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “estimate at least one data point of the aggregated dataset based on at least one of the data ingested from the at least one first external data source and the data ingested from the at least one second external data source,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “searching” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., the value of a data point based on first data and second data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 15:
The abstract idea of aggregating data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the at least one first external data source is different then the at least one second external data source,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular data source. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the manual process of deciding when to ingest data for aggregation. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the at least one first external data source is different then the at least one second external data source,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of aggregating data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6 and 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein ingesting data from the at least one first external data source including batch processing data received from the at least one first external data source,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “batch processing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a number of data points at a single time. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7 and 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein ingesting data from the at least one second external data source includes batch processing data received from the at least one second external data source,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “batch processing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a number of data points at a single time. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 8 and 18:
The abstract idea of aggregating data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the data ingested from the at least one first external data source includes a first dataset that has one or more data points that align with one or more data points of the aggregated dataset,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular data source. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the manual process of deciding when to ingest data for aggregation. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the data ingested from the at least one first external data source includes a first dataset that has one or more data points that align with one or more data points of the aggregated dataset,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of aggregating data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 9:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the one or more data points of the first dataset serve as a starting point for the one or more data points of the aggregated dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “serving” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., the value of a data point based on first data potentially being modified by second data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “update the one or more data points of the first dataset based on data ingested from the at least one second external data source to generate the one or more data points of the aggregated dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “updating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., the value of a data point based on first data potentially being modified by second data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 21:
The abstract idea of aggregating data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the at least one first external data source includes a machine learning module trained to predict when network traffic will likely drop below a first threshold,” is mere instruction to perform the mental process of predicting when network traffic will likely drop below a first threshold with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the manual process of deciding when to ingest data for aggregation. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the at least one first external data source includes a machine learning module trained to predict when network traffic will likely drop below a first threshold,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of aggregating data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al., US 2009/0287758 A1, in view of Oikonomou, US 2014/0006538 A1, and Pulver et al., US 2008/0281832 A1.
As per claims 1, 11, and 20, Hamilton teaches:
ingesting data from at least one first external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033, where a feed is received from a first source;
halting the ingesting of data from the at least one first external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033, where the feed being received from the first source is fully received;
ingesting data from at least one second external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033, where a feed is received from a second source;
halting the ingesting of data from the at least one second external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033, where the feed being received from the first source is fully received; and
prior to satisfaction of a third trigger condition, aggregating the data to generate an aggregated dataset, Hamilton ¶ 0033, where aggregation happens before some other event.
Hamilton, however, does not teach:
ingesting data from at least one first external data source in response to a first trigger condition determined from machine-monitored network traffic; or
ingesting data from at least one second external data source in response to a second trigger condition.
The analogous and compatible art of Oikonomou, however, teaches pausing a download when available bandwidth drops below a threshold, and resuming it when available bandwidth rises above the threshold. Oikonomou ¶ 0070.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hamilton with those of Oikonomou to pause and resume ingesting data from the first and second data source when the bandwidth drops below and raises above, respectively, a available bandwidth rate threshold.
Neither Hamilton nor Oikonomou, however, teach:
engage a normalization engine to automatically normalize the data ingested from the at least one first external source and the at least one second external data source, the normalization engine including non-generic transformation logic including a schema mapping ruleset configured to reduce data-conversion overhead by converting heterogeneous data formats into a standardized format; or
aggregating the normalized data.
The analogous and compatible art of Pulver, however, teachers normalizing data ingested from feeds before aggregating the normalized data, where the normalization is based on transformation logic including a schema mapping ruleset configured to reduce data-conversion overhead by converting heterogeneous data formats into a standardized format. Pulver ¶¶ 0006-07, 0035.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the teachings of Pulver to those of Hamilton and to use a normalization engine, implicitly with transformation logic, to normalize the data from the feeds before aggregating in order to ensure proper aggregation.
As per claims 2 and 12, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, but Hamilton does not teach:
wherein the first trigger condition includes at least one of: determining that a current amount of network traffic drops below a first threshold; determining that a current time is equal to a first predefined trigger time; or determining that data from the at least one first external data source is available.
The analogous and compatible art of Oikonomou, however, teaches pausing a download when available bandwidth drops below a threshold, and resuming it when available bandwidth rises above the threshold. Oikonomou ¶ 0070.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hamilton with those of Oikonomou to pause and resume ingesting data from the first and second data source when the bandwidth drops below and raises above, respectively, a available bandwidth rate threshold.
As per claims 3 and 13, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, but Hamilton does not teach:
wherein the second trigger condition includes at least one of: determining that the ingesting of the data from the at least one first external data source is complete; determining that a current amount of network traffic drops below a second threshold; determining that a current time is equal to a second predefined trigger time; or determining that data from the at least one second external data source is available.
The analogous and compatible art of Oikonomou, however, teaches pausing a download when available bandwidth drops below a threshold, and resuming it when available bandwidth rises above the threshold. Oikonomou ¶ 0070.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hamilton with those of Oikonomou to pause and resume ingesting data from the first and second data source when the bandwidth drops below and raises above, respectively, a available bandwidth rate threshold.
As per claims 4 and 14, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
estimating at least one data point of the aggregated dataset based on at least one of the data ingested from the at least one first external data source and the data ingested from the at least one second external data source.
As per claims 5 and 15, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
wherein the first external data source is different then the second external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033, where each object is a separate source.
As per claims 6 and 16, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
wherein ingesting data from the at least one first external data source including batch processing data received from the at least one first external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033.
As per claims 7 and 17, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
wherein ingesting data from the at least one second external data source includes batch processing data received from the at least one second external data source, Hamilton ¶ 0033.
As per claims 8 and 18, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
wherein the data ingested from the at least one first external data source includes a first dataset that has one or more data points that align with one or more data points of the aggregated dataset, Hamilton ¶¶ 0033-40, where, e.g., the ingested feeds align on an avatar data point.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
wherein the one or more data points of the first dataset serve as a starting point for the one or more data points of the aggregated dataset, Hamilton ¶¶ 0033-40, where, e.g., data about an avatar’s actions in a first feed serve as a starting point for monitoring the avatar’s behavior.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and Hamilton further teaches:
update the one or more data points of the first dataset based on data ingested from the at least one second external data source to generate the one or more data points of the aggregated dataset, Hamilton ¶¶ 0033-40, where, e.g., the ingested feeds are used to determine overall avatar activity.
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Hamilton does not teach:
wherein the at least one first external data source includes a machine learning module trained to predict when network traffic will likely drop below a first threshold.
The analogous and compatible art of Oikonomou, however, teaches using a machine learning algorithm in retrieving content that analyzes trends in content requests, and also teaches that available bandwidth is a trend. Oikonomou ¶¶ 0053-55.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hamilton with those of Oikonomou to pause and resume ingesting data from the first and second data source when the bandwidth drops below and raises above, respectively, a available bandwidth rate threshold as predicted by a machine learning algorithm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159